Calling all kalayana-mittas! Portland Friends of the Dhamma (PFoD) is at a critical juncture in their 13-year history and needs all the support they can get.
For those who may be unfamiliar with PFoD, it's a nonprofit lay-group/Buddhist centre affiliated with Abhayagiri Monastery and the Thai Forest Tradition of Ajahn Chah located in Portland, Oregon. They hosts a number of regular, weekly sitting and study groups, and act as a venue for visiting monastics to teach. PFoD was also instrumental in helping to establish the Pacific Hermitage. Since it's inception, PFoD has been a growing beacon of Dhamma in the Pacific Northwest, operating largely on a shoe-string budget.
Recently, however, PFoD had to move out of their long-time location because the building they've been renting space in for the last 8 years was sold. Currently, they're renting out space at the Dharma Rain Zen Center (DRZC). Unfortunately, this building is also being sold as the Zen Center is going to be moving into a newly constructed building at the beginning of 2014, and it seems there's already a prospective buyer (a neighbor) eager to swoop it up as we speak. The board of directors just wants it sold ASAP; but the abbot, Kyogen Carlson, would really like PFoD to purchase the property and keep it a dharma centre and is willing to fight to try and get the board to sell the property to the PFoD community. And PFoD does need a new (and more permanent) home. It seems like a match made in heaven. The only problem is, PFoD doesn't quite have the financial backing to attempt to make an offer or apply for mortgage at this point.
The PFoD community has been discussing the idea of purchasing the building for the last few weeks now, and with the news that another buyer is already in the running, they've decided that while it's a long shot, they shouldn't let this potential opportunity go by without at least making an attempt. As it stands, they have an extremely short window to raise enough monthly commitments (kind of like public radio's 'sustaining circle') and donations to go to the DRZC's board, make an offer, and try to make this beautiful space their new home.
To help them achieve this goal, they held a special daylong event today, attended by Ajahn Pasanno and the Pacific Hermitage monastics, to act as a kind of benefit and/or fundraiser to help solidify the level of financial support needed for PFoD events and to see if they can really make this seemingly perfect facility their new home. They've already got about 50% of what they estimate they'd need a month to make this work, as well as a few sizable contributions towards a down payment if they make it past the first hurdle, but they could use a lot more help. Obviously, this is mainly directed towards anyone in or near the Portland area who personally benefits (or could benefit) from having a space to practice in and a community to practice with; but I'm sure any support would be appreciated immensely.
If anyone reading this happens to feel inspired to donate anything they can, no matter how little, towards this cause, or would like more information about the specifics (e.g., finances, estimates, etc.), I urge you to contact PFoD ASAP.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
upasika renewal trip
Our caravan to Abhayagiri for the Upasika Renewal Day left around 4:45am Friday morning, a motley crew from all over the Pacific Northwest gathered together for this special occasion. Irv, the driver of our car, for example, was from Pullman, Washington, and had driven to Portland the day before. We all met at the old Portland Friends of the Dhamma hall, organized our luggage and seating arrangements, and began the twelve hour journey to Abhayagiri before the sun started its own daily migration across the sky.We made a brief stop near Eugene early on to grab some coffee, tea, and water at one the innumerable Starbucks that dot the universe, like some kind of ley line nexus points tying together all things, and then hurried towards the California border, eager to meet up with two monks on tudong in time to offer their daily meal, which has to be eaten before midday. Along the way, we passed the time by discussing everything from Dhamma to archaeology, anthropology, ecology, and the conditionality underlying geopolitics.
Afterwards, the group paid for their campsite for another night, Denise, the event organizer, arranged their meal the following day at the nearby Forest Cafe, and we all took a short hike to Hidden Beach to enjoy the beautiful landscape and fresh ocean air before saying goodbye to Ajahn Naniko and Tan Thitabho and continuing on to Abhayagiri. We arrived at Abhayagiri just as the sun was setting in Redwood Valley, paid our respects to Ajahn Pasanno, and settled in for the night.
Saturday began at 4am for Shad, one of the drivers, and I. We'd been offered a room at a guest house across from Abhayagiri that was about a ten minute drive up a rather rugged slope, and so wanted to make sure we weren't late for morning puja, which started at 5am. We chanted both the traditional Pali and the English translation, and then we meditated as the sun rose. Morning puja was followed by a short work period and a light breakfast of oatmeal and coffee, both of which were heavenly.
Lunch followed. After the meal offering, Ajahn Pasanno and a number of his senior students spent the rest of the day explaining many of the monastic rules and ceremonies, not only to help educate the laity about monastic life in general, but also to help relate how some of these practices can be incorporated into our lay practice. Talking about the ins and outs of monastic life was inspiring; it filled some of us with a sense of longing. I couldn't help fantasizing about what it must be like in being robes and surrounded by such skilled and dedicated monastics. At 7:30pm, after the informal tea period, Ajahn Sudanto led the evening puja and gave a Dhamma talk on the importance of spiritual friendship (kalyana-mitta) as a source of support on the path.
After the meal, the monks began to prepare for the ordination ceremony taking place at 4pm as the laity cleaned up from lunch, filling the remaining time however they felt the most appropriate. I spent most of it talking with Irv and Shad, checking out some of the books in the main house, and sitting in the meditation hall. Around 2:30pm, I started up the Cool Oaks trail, taking the long way around to the ordination platform. Others took the shorter route, or else caught a ride up the relatively steep mountainside.
Tan Sudhiro's ordination ceremony lasted about two hours, all throughout which Ajahn Pasanno explained what was happening in detail as he acted as preceptor. The ceremony seemed especially auspicious as it had a full quorum of ten monks — double the number of monks needed to perform it outside of the Ganges valley (ten vs. five), illustrating the growing strength of Buddhism in the West — was attended by three senior monks and seven novices from the City of 10,000 Buddhas, and was performed on Father's Day/the 18th Anniversary of Venerable Master Hua's Entering Nirvana. I was happy for Tan Sudhiro and jealous at the same time.The night ended with a quick clean-up of the ordination area and an informal tea period. The Pacific Hermitage monks took this time to catch up with some of the monks from Abhayagiri, while the group from Portland and some of the other upasikas took the opportunity to spend time with Ajahn Pasanno in the meditation hall, talking and asking questions about the practice. At the end of the night, we paid respects to Ajahn Pasanno and took leave, which is traditionally done in the monastic community by ceremony of Asking for Forgiveness (although we did this informally).
Friday, May 24, 2013
a place of peace
The meditation group I sometimes sit with on Fridays is moving this weekend, and tonight was the last Friday sit at the Sellwood Methodist Church. Being shy and deathly afraid of public speaking, I don't usually say anything when they have the 'check-in' portion of the evening, but I figured I'd say something since it was kind of a special night. So when my turn came, I mentioned that, listening to everyone speak, the theme of the night seemed to revolved around reference points in our lives, gratitude for the space and the community, and the blessings of having a place to practice with others in, and it reminded me of the Mangala Sutta (Highest Blessings), especially the verse, "Living in places of suitable kinds, with the fruits of past good deeds, and guided by the rightful way: these are the highest blessings." I added that 'places of suitable kinds' wasn't just limited to our external surroundings, like the building the Portland Friends of the Dhamma have met in for over eight years, but also includes our internal spaces, our minds, where the practice really takes place and what helps make us and the places around us a refuge for others—like an island in the midst of life's turbulent waters. And I was pleasantly surprised when they chose the Mangala Sutta to be the last thing the Friday night group chanted at their old location. I thought it was a fitting way to close out the night.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
dalai lama environmental summit panel
I had an awesome time at the Environmental Summit Panel today. The discussion was interesting, the Dalai Lama was funny and inspiring, and the Red Hot Chili Pepper's set was pretty rad. And the best part was, I got to share the experience with a few of my really good friends.
One of the things that I think would've made the panel better, though, was including a Marxist ecologist to help connect some of the dots for them. (Speaking of 'Marxist,' it was great to see the audience, who applauded just about everything the Dalai Lama said, squirm and the silence that followed when he said, "Perhaps I am socialist. As far as social economy is concerned, I am Marxist.")
Most of the panelists, not including the Dalai Lama who openly stated that he's Marxist when it comes to social-economic theory, agreed that we need to rethink our economic structure in some way, but they never really touched upon how doing so within the context of capitalism is problematic to say the least. For one thing, they all seemed to agree that an economic system that depends on continued and uninterrupted expansion (i.e., indefinite growth) isn't an environmentally sustainable system, particularly when the drive for profit is the bottom line.
However, nobody really dealt with the problem that capital only functions when it grows and reproduces itself (i.e., creates surplus value and profit) in a process that arguably requires amplifying consumption, particularly to overcome the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and a shrinkage in the absolute mass of profit created via commodity production. And further exacerbating the problem, which was briefly mentioned, is the fact that, within the context of this system, negative externalities can actually contribute to economic growth.
Another thing that wasn't really touched upon was that if we truly want to change our collective behaviour in more environmentally sound ways, on an individual level as well as on the broader level of global production and distribution, we need to critically assess and rethink the current system that underlies our material reproduction and coerces our economic and consumptive behaviour.
Simply recycling and reusing clothes on an individual level isn't going to reduce our CO2 admissions from 400ppm to 350ppm since most of the pollution is produced by large industries, industrial farming, the military, the harvesting and processing of fossil fuels, etc., not to mention the fact that less consumption by consumers means a slowing and even collapsing capitalist economy (especially in the US, where consumption accounts for about 70% of GDP).
This, I think, also ties into the problem of conflicts between various industries and public interest when it comes to combating things like pollution and environmental degradation. For one, more environmentally sound policies would potentially make things more expensive, and could also cut into profits and restrict growth; and the companies we're trying to 'persuade' to further limit pollution have powerful lobbying power and put pressure on politicians (if they don't just outright buy them), and attempting to regulate them via legislation often results in inadequate compromises (e.g., weak cap and trade laws).
So the solution can't just be shifting to more individual 'green' activities, nor can it solely be through political reforms and regulations (i.e., laws), although both can be useful tools; it has to include a fundamental shift in the way we approach production, distribution, and even consumption. And one of the ways to achieve this is through better education and honest, open dialogues about what we all agree on and how to move forward in the direction we want to go—which hopefully includes taking care of our collective home.
I think that was one of the main points made by the Dalai Lama, which he returned to again and again. Changing our behaviour begins with becoming more educated, about ourselves and our environment, continually adjusting our worldview based upon the things we learn, strengthening our affection and compassion for others, realizing our potential as human beings, and then going out into the world and acting on that knowledge from a place of concern for the well-being of both ourselves and others.
All in all, it was a great way to spend the day and I'm glad that I was able to go. If nothing else, it inspired me to get back into my meditation practice and motivated me to continue trying to do what I can to make myself and the world a better place using all the tools at my disposal.
One of the things that I think would've made the panel better, though, was including a Marxist ecologist to help connect some of the dots for them. (Speaking of 'Marxist,' it was great to see the audience, who applauded just about everything the Dalai Lama said, squirm and the silence that followed when he said, "Perhaps I am socialist. As far as social economy is concerned, I am Marxist.")
Most of the panelists, not including the Dalai Lama who openly stated that he's Marxist when it comes to social-economic theory, agreed that we need to rethink our economic structure in some way, but they never really touched upon how doing so within the context of capitalism is problematic to say the least. For one thing, they all seemed to agree that an economic system that depends on continued and uninterrupted expansion (i.e., indefinite growth) isn't an environmentally sustainable system, particularly when the drive for profit is the bottom line.
However, nobody really dealt with the problem that capital only functions when it grows and reproduces itself (i.e., creates surplus value and profit) in a process that arguably requires amplifying consumption, particularly to overcome the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and a shrinkage in the absolute mass of profit created via commodity production. And further exacerbating the problem, which was briefly mentioned, is the fact that, within the context of this system, negative externalities can actually contribute to economic growth.
Another thing that wasn't really touched upon was that if we truly want to change our collective behaviour in more environmentally sound ways, on an individual level as well as on the broader level of global production and distribution, we need to critically assess and rethink the current system that underlies our material reproduction and coerces our economic and consumptive behaviour.
Simply recycling and reusing clothes on an individual level isn't going to reduce our CO2 admissions from 400ppm to 350ppm since most of the pollution is produced by large industries, industrial farming, the military, the harvesting and processing of fossil fuels, etc., not to mention the fact that less consumption by consumers means a slowing and even collapsing capitalist economy (especially in the US, where consumption accounts for about 70% of GDP).
This, I think, also ties into the problem of conflicts between various industries and public interest when it comes to combating things like pollution and environmental degradation. For one, more environmentally sound policies would potentially make things more expensive, and could also cut into profits and restrict growth; and the companies we're trying to 'persuade' to further limit pollution have powerful lobbying power and put pressure on politicians (if they don't just outright buy them), and attempting to regulate them via legislation often results in inadequate compromises (e.g., weak cap and trade laws).
So the solution can't just be shifting to more individual 'green' activities, nor can it solely be through political reforms and regulations (i.e., laws), although both can be useful tools; it has to include a fundamental shift in the way we approach production, distribution, and even consumption. And one of the ways to achieve this is through better education and honest, open dialogues about what we all agree on and how to move forward in the direction we want to go—which hopefully includes taking care of our collective home.
I think that was one of the main points made by the Dalai Lama, which he returned to again and again. Changing our behaviour begins with becoming more educated, about ourselves and our environment, continually adjusting our worldview based upon the things we learn, strengthening our affection and compassion for others, realizing our potential as human beings, and then going out into the world and acting on that knowledge from a place of concern for the well-being of both ourselves and others.
All in all, it was a great way to spend the day and I'm glad that I was able to go. If nothing else, it inspired me to get back into my meditation practice and motivated me to continue trying to do what I can to make myself and the world a better place using all the tools at my disposal.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
some thoughts on the buddhist concept of becoming
The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is predominately a mental process that arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five aggregates, and which acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta). As such, it's also an integral component of the post-mortem process of rebirth (punabhava, literally 'again becoming') and the "production of renewed existence" (SN 12.64) for those, lime myself, who accept the possibility.
In fact, I think becoming is the point where the cosmological and psychological models or processes of dependent co-arising primarily converge (although the psychological aspect clearly dominates/is the focal point, in my opinion), and once that process is stopped, the mind is open to the deathless (amata), which I interpret in two main ways, i.e., deathlessness in the sense of not having to be born ever again and so not having to die (both in terms of the conceit 'I am' and post-mortem rebirth) and in the sense of no longer being harmed by the thought of death. In SN 12.2, for example, becoming is defined as "sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming." In AN 3.76, however, becoming is treated slightly differently, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the bottom of his translation that:
So, ultimately then, becoming is a mental process that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," both in a psychological and cosmological sense, i.e., acting as a condition for the birth, ageing, and death (or arising, changing, and disappearance as per AN 3.47) of the conceit 'I am,' which occurs innumerable times throughout one's life (think of the imagery of SN 12.61), as well as a condition for birth, ageing, and death in the broader sense. And while it's true that most of the descriptions of dependent co-arising are geared more towards the cosmological or life-to-life model, there are place like MN 140 where I think both are illustrated in tandem, with the psychological aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:
Or an alternate translation from the appendix to P. A. Payutto's Dependent Origination: The Buddhist Law of Conditionality:
The reason I think the psychological aspects are so important and tend to stress them more is because that's where the work of the meditator is done, where we can observe these processes taking place in the present. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process ("A Verb for Nirvana"). And when you boil it all down, this process is primarily a mental one.
In fact, I think becoming is the point where the cosmological and psychological models or processes of dependent co-arising primarily converge (although the psychological aspect clearly dominates/is the focal point, in my opinion), and once that process is stopped, the mind is open to the deathless (amata), which I interpret in two main ways, i.e., deathlessness in the sense of not having to be born ever again and so not having to die (both in terms of the conceit 'I am' and post-mortem rebirth) and in the sense of no longer being harmed by the thought of death. In SN 12.2, for example, becoming is defined as "sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming." In AN 3.76, however, becoming is treated slightly differently, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the bottom of his translation that:
Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity in a particular world of experience: your sense of what you are, focused on a particular desire, in your personal sense of the world as related to that desire. In other words, it is both a psychological and a cosmological concept. For more on this topic, see The Paradox of Becoming, Introduction and Chapter One.
So, ultimately then, becoming is a mental process that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," both in a psychological and cosmological sense, i.e., acting as a condition for the birth, ageing, and death (or arising, changing, and disappearance as per AN 3.47) of the conceit 'I am,' which occurs innumerable times throughout one's life (think of the imagery of SN 12.61), as well as a condition for birth, ageing, and death in the broader sense. And while it's true that most of the descriptions of dependent co-arising are geared more towards the cosmological or life-to-life model, there are place like MN 140 where I think both are illustrated in tandem, with the psychological aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."
Or an alternate translation from the appendix to P. A. Payutto's Dependent Origination: The Buddhist Law of Conditionality:
"The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions (pañña, wisdom; sacca, integrity; caga, generosity; and upasama, calm.). With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness one is said to be a muni, a peaceful one." On what account did I say this? Perceptions such as 'I am,' 'I am not,' 'I will be,' 'I will not be,' 'I will have form,' 'I will not have form,' 'I will have no form,' 'I will have perception,' 'I will not have perception,' 'I will neither have nor not have perception,' monks, are an affliction, an ulcer, a dart. By transcending these perceptions one is a muni, a peaceful one.
"Monks, the muni is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not confused, nor does he yearn. There are no longer any causes for birth in him. Not being born, how can he age? Not aging, how can he die? Not dying, how can he be confused? Not being confused, how can he be desirous? "The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions. With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness, one is a muni, a peaceful one" -- It was on this account that this statement was made.
The reason I think the psychological aspects are so important and tend to stress them more is because that's where the work of the meditator is done, where we can observe these processes taking place in the present. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process ("A Verb for Nirvana"). And when you boil it all down, this process is primarily a mental one.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
rebirth (expanded)
One of the things people new to Buddhism have trouble accepting is the literal interpretation of rebirth (punabhava, literally 'again becoming'). This is especially true in the West, where it seems at odds with today's materialist or physicalist view of reality.
In the Suttas, the standard description/declaration of final release is, "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world" (e.g., SN 22.59); and this has traditionally been understood to mean both that suffering in the here and now has been conquered, as well as the end of future births into one of the five (sometimes six) realms (loka) of existence, which themselves can be taken both literally (as external realms of existence) and metaphorically (as mental states).
They're definitely real in the sense of various pleasant and unpleasant mental states that we mentally take birth into, which is something one can easily observe for themselves. For example, BuddhaNet's introductory essay, "Introduction to Buddhism," gives a good explanation of the realms in this way:
And this psychological interpretation is supported by the Suttas themselves. For example, we find passages like these in AN 4.235 (notice the qualifier 'like'):
As for the literal existence of these realms, I can't say. It's certainly possible, and it's often fun to speculate about them (I've even heard stories of people who could see beings from these others realms); but I think it's more useful to focus on what we can experience for ourselves in the here and now, and use our practice to try and transcend these mental realms in order to find a true and lasting happiness inside. And while I don't want challenge or assert the validity of the traditional understanding of postmortem rebirth, I'd like to at least mention how the process of rebirth is generally understood.
To begin with, the Buddha didn't reject that specific mental events are contingent upon corresponding physical events in the brain, which is the prevailing view of modern science; but he didn't explicitly promote it, either. In The Buddha and His Teachings, for example, Narada Thera notes that:
So even though the Buddha detailed the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15), he wasn't a strict materialist. In regard to name-and-form (nama-rupa), for example, he didn't see consciousness as merely the byproduct of matter; he saw mentality and materiality as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their intimately connected relationship (SN 12.67).
In Theravada, the literal interpretation of rebirth is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances). According to the teachings on dependent co-arising — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and physically over multiple lifetimes (non-literalists simply disregard the 'three-life' model, e.g., see Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination) — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
In explaining how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). Hence the Buddha states, "Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence" (SN 12.38).
To better illustrate this, I'd like to make an analogy to a theory introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene, where he presents his theory that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors, which is essentially a part of what helps species survive and reproduce. He doesn't mean that the human gene is actually selfish, but rather that it acts as if it were. Craving can also be seen to act in a similar way. If we look at craving as being the cause by which this process happens at the molecular level, we can get an idea of the role that craving plays in realm of rebirth. In this pseudoscientific analogy, the propagation of genes is analogous to becoming and birth in dependent co-arising, and the cause of this process is craving; in the case of genes, it would be craving in regard for the reproductive success of the organism, or of other organisms containing the same gene, while in the case of beings, it would be craving in regard to the production of renewed existence, or the establishment and growth of consciousness.
Unfortunately, there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries. While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as reliable sources of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's true, for example, that the Pali term patisandhi-citta (re-linking consciousness) — which is used to explain the process of rebirth in detail — is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a 're-linking' consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in a way that supports a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That's why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma. But in either interpretation, rebirth is 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. The only difference I see is that one side believes this process ceases at death, regardless of whether there's still craving present in the mind, and the other doesn't.
As for myself, however, I'm agnostic when it comes to rebirth. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching. Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in "Faith in Awakening":
But luckily, one doesn't have to believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist. As far as I know, there's no sort of Buddhist excommunication if you don't. One can certainly practice Buddhism without believing in rebirth, or one can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they so choose. The teachings are open to either interpretation.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally 'action') deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that doesn't necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience. This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically in terms of arising and ceasing mental states, etc.).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117). Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they're placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding our fluctuating mental states and the ways in which we construct our sense of self in what the Buddha called the process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara), as well as how to utilize that process in more skillful ways.
Whatever the case, my own view is that both interpretations of rebirth are supported by the Suttas, and neither is necessarily mutually exclusive, with the psychological aspects of rebirth and dependent co-arising illustrate how suffering arises and rebirth takes place moment-to-moment in order to explain the causal process by which suffering arises and rebirth takes place at the cosmological or life-to-life level. It's all intertwined, and the point where I think the cosmological and psychological models or processes primarily converge is becoming (bhava). In SN 12.2, for example, becoming is defined as "sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming." In AN 3.76, however, becoming is treated slightly differently, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the bottom of his translation that:
Becoming, then, is a mental process that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," which can be understood in both a psychological and cosmological sense, i.e., acting as a condition for the birth, ageing, and death (or arising, changing, and disappearance as per AN 3.47) of the conceit 'I am,' which occurs innumerable times throughout one's life (itself an idea that brings to mind the imagery of things like SN 12.61 and Nm 2.4), as well as a condition for birth, ageing, and death in the broader sense. And while it's true that most of the descriptions of dependent co-arising appear to be more geared towards the cosmological or life-to-life model, there are place like MN 140 where they're illustrated in tandem, with the psychological or moment-to-moment aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:
The Abhidhamma literature, with its various models and descriptions of arising mental states, is even more explicit in this connection. For example, from the introduction to U Thittila's translation of the Vibhanga, the second book of the Abhidhamma Pitika:
The reason I think the psychological aspects are so important is because that's where the work of the meditator is done, where we can observe these processes taking place in the present. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it in "A Verb for Nirvana," "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." And this process is primarily a mental one; so if we can learn to be more aware of this process, we can learn to master it through a combination of mindfulness training and other contemplative techniques.
Our mental states and sense of self aren't static things; and in my opinion, a correct analysis of dependent co-arising includes seeing that the process of their arising and ceasing is the same causally-determined process as that of beings, whether in terms of self-identification regarding the five clinging-aggregates or cosmological rebirth. The way I see it, the teachings on kamma and rebirth are useless if they don't also point towards where we can observe this process of renewed becoming taking place in the present, which is one of the reasons I think it more efficacious to approach them through a phenomenological lens. I imagine that there are methods found within modern psychology that are comparable and perhaps equally as effective, but many people still find Buddhist methods helpful (and even some modern psychologists are finding them useful as well).
And while I can definitely understand the difficulty in accepting concepts such as rebirth in their most literal sense, there are plenty of other things in Buddhism that can potentially have an immediate impact on our mental well-being in the here and now. However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view of rebirth one holds (if any) because the actual practice is still the same. What truly matters is what one does with the teachings, not what one believes about them. That's why I think the Buddha likens his teachings to a raft in MN 22:
In the Suttas, the standard description/declaration of final release is, "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world" (e.g., SN 22.59); and this has traditionally been understood to mean both that suffering in the here and now has been conquered, as well as the end of future births into one of the five (sometimes six) realms (loka) of existence, which themselves can be taken both literally (as external realms of existence) and metaphorically (as mental states).
They're definitely real in the sense of various pleasant and unpleasant mental states that we mentally take birth into, which is something one can easily observe for themselves. For example, BuddhaNet's introductory essay, "Introduction to Buddhism," gives a good explanation of the realms in this way:
If ego decides it likes the situation, it begins to churn up all sorts of ways to possess it. A craving to consume the situation arises and we long to satisfy that craving. Once we do, a ghost of that craving carries over and we look around for something else to consume. We get into the habitual pattern of becoming consumer oriented. Perhaps we order a piece of software for our computer. We play with it for awhile [sic], until the novelty wears out, and then we look around for the next piece of software that has the magic glow of not being possessed yet. Soon we haven't even got the shrink wrap off the current package when we start looking for the next one. Owning the software and using it doesn't seem to be as important as wanting it, looking forward to its arrival. This is known as the hungry ghost realm where we have made an occupation out of craving. We can never find satisfaction, it is like drinking salt water to quench our thirst.
Another realm is the animal realm, or having the mind like that of an animal. Here we find security by making certain that everything is totally predictable. We only buy blue chip stock, never take a chance and never look at new possibilities. The thought of new possibilities frightens us and we look with scorn at anyone who suggests anything innovative. This realm is characterised by ignorance. We put on blinders and only look straight ahead, never to the right or left.
The hell realm is characterised by acute aggression. We build a wall of anger between ourselves and our experience. Everything irritates us, even the most innocuous, and innocent statement drives us mad with anger. The heat of our anger is reflected back on us and sends us into a frenzy to escape from our torture, which in turn causes us to fight even harder and get even angrier. The whole thing builds on itself until we don't even know if we're fighting with someone else or ourselves. We are so busy fighting that we can't find an alternative to fighting; the possibility of alternative never even occurs to us.
These are the three lower realms. One of the three higher realms is called the jealous god realm. This pattern of existence is characterised by acute paranoia. We are always concerned with "making it". Everything is seen from a competitive point of view. We are always trying to score points, and trying to prevent others from scoring on us. If someone achieves something special we become determined to out do [sic]them. We never trust anyone; we "know" they're trying to slip one past us. If someone tries to help us, we try to figure out their angle. If someone doesn't try to help us, they are being uncooperative, and we make a note to ourselves that we will get even later. "Don't get mad, get even," that's our motto.
At some point we might hear about spirituality. We might hear about the possibility of meditation techniques, imported from some eastern religion, or mystical western one, that will make our minds peaceful and absorb us into a universal harmony. We begin to meditate and perform certain rituals and we find ourselves absorbed into infinite space and blissful states of existence. Everything sparkles with love and light; we become godlike beings. We become proud of our godlike powers of meditative absorption. We might even dwell in the realm of infinite space where thoughts seldom arise to bother us. We ignore everything that doesn't confirm our godhood. We have manufactured the god realm, the highest of the six realms of existence. The problem is, that we have manufactured it. We begin to relax and no longer feel the need to maintain our exalted state. Eventually a small sliver of doubt occurs. Have we really made it? At first we are able to smooth over the question, but eventually the doubt begins to occur more and more frequently and soon we begin to struggle to regain our supreme confidence. As soon as we begin to struggle, we fall back into the lower realms and begin the whole process over and over; from god realm to jealous god realm to animal realm to hungry ghost realm to hell realm. At some point we begin to wonder if there isn't some sort of alternative to our habitual way of dealing with the world. This is the human realm.
The human realm is the only one in which liberation from the six states of existence is possible. The human realm is characterised by doubt and inquisitiveness and the longing for something better. We are not as absorbed by the all consuming [sic] preoccupations of the other states of being. We begin to wonder whether it is possible to relate to the world as simple, dignified human beings.
And this psychological interpretation is supported by the Suttas themselves. For example, we find passages like these in AN 4.235 (notice the qualifier 'like'):
And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.
And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication ... a non-injurious verbal fabrication ... a non-injurious mental fabrication ... He rearises in a non-injurious world ... There he is touched by non-injurious contacts ... He experiences feelings that are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Beautiful Black Devas. This is called kamma that is bright with bright result.
As for the literal existence of these realms, I can't say. It's certainly possible, and it's often fun to speculate about them (I've even heard stories of people who could see beings from these others realms); but I think it's more useful to focus on what we can experience for ourselves in the here and now, and use our practice to try and transcend these mental realms in order to find a true and lasting happiness inside. And while I don't want challenge or assert the validity of the traditional understanding of postmortem rebirth, I'd like to at least mention how the process of rebirth is generally understood.
To begin with, the Buddha didn't reject that specific mental events are contingent upon corresponding physical events in the brain, which is the prevailing view of modern science; but he didn't explicitly promote it, either. In The Buddha and His Teachings, for example, Narada Thera notes that:
In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the seat of consciousness, in such indirect terms as 'yam rupam nissaya—depending on that material thing', without positively asserting whether that rupa was either the heart (hadaya) or the brain. But, according to the view of commentators like Venerable Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha, the seat of consciousness is definitely the heart. It should be understood that the Buddha neither accepted nor rejected the popular cardiac theory. (pp. 330-31)
So even though the Buddha detailed the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15), he wasn't a strict materialist. In regard to name-and-form (nama-rupa), for example, he didn't see consciousness as merely the byproduct of matter; he saw mentality and materiality as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their intimately connected relationship (SN 12.67).
In Theravada, the literal interpretation of rebirth is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances). According to the teachings on dependent co-arising — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and physically over multiple lifetimes (non-literalists simply disregard the 'three-life' model, e.g., see Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination) — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
In explaining how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). Hence the Buddha states, "Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence" (SN 12.38).
To better illustrate this, I'd like to make an analogy to a theory introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene, where he presents his theory that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors, which is essentially a part of what helps species survive and reproduce. He doesn't mean that the human gene is actually selfish, but rather that it acts as if it were. Craving can also be seen to act in a similar way. If we look at craving as being the cause by which this process happens at the molecular level, we can get an idea of the role that craving plays in realm of rebirth. In this pseudoscientific analogy, the propagation of genes is analogous to becoming and birth in dependent co-arising, and the cause of this process is craving; in the case of genes, it would be craving in regard for the reproductive success of the organism, or of other organisms containing the same gene, while in the case of beings, it would be craving in regard to the production of renewed existence, or the establishment and growth of consciousness.
Unfortunately, there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries. While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as reliable sources of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's true, for example, that the Pali term patisandhi-citta (re-linking consciousness) — which is used to explain the process of rebirth in detail — is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a 're-linking' consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in a way that supports a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That's why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma. But in either interpretation, rebirth is 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. The only difference I see is that one side believes this process ceases at death, regardless of whether there's still craving present in the mind, and the other doesn't.
As for myself, however, I'm agnostic when it comes to rebirth. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching. Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in "Faith in Awakening":
[I]nstead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate? If, on the other hand, you were to believe in any of the alternatives — such as a doctrine of an impersonal fate or a deity who determined the course of your pleasure and pain, or a doctrine that all things were coincidental and without cause — what would those beliefs lead you to do? Would they allow you to put an end to suffering through your own efforts? Would they allow any purpose for knowledge at all? If, on the other hand, you refused to commit to a coherent idea of what human action can do, would you be likely to see a demanding path of practice all the way through to the end?
But luckily, one doesn't have to believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist. As far as I know, there's no sort of Buddhist excommunication if you don't. One can certainly practice Buddhism without believing in rebirth, or one can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they so choose. The teachings are open to either interpretation.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally 'action') deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that doesn't necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience. This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically in terms of arising and ceasing mental states, etc.).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117). Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they're placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding our fluctuating mental states and the ways in which we construct our sense of self in what the Buddha called the process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara), as well as how to utilize that process in more skillful ways.
Whatever the case, my own view is that both interpretations of rebirth are supported by the Suttas, and neither is necessarily mutually exclusive, with the psychological aspects of rebirth and dependent co-arising illustrate how suffering arises and rebirth takes place moment-to-moment in order to explain the causal process by which suffering arises and rebirth takes place at the cosmological or life-to-life level. It's all intertwined, and the point where I think the cosmological and psychological models or processes primarily converge is becoming (bhava). In SN 12.2, for example, becoming is defined as "sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming." In AN 3.76, however, becoming is treated slightly differently, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the bottom of his translation that:
Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity in a particular world of experience: your sense of what you are, focused on a particular desire, in your personal sense of the world as related to that desire. In other words, it is both a psychological and a cosmological concept. For more on this topic, see The Paradox of Becoming, Introduction and Chapter One.
Becoming, then, is a mental process that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," which can be understood in both a psychological and cosmological sense, i.e., acting as a condition for the birth, ageing, and death (or arising, changing, and disappearance as per AN 3.47) of the conceit 'I am,' which occurs innumerable times throughout one's life (itself an idea that brings to mind the imagery of things like SN 12.61 and Nm 2.4), as well as a condition for birth, ageing, and death in the broader sense. And while it's true that most of the descriptions of dependent co-arising appear to be more geared towards the cosmological or life-to-life model, there are place like MN 140 where they're illustrated in tandem, with the psychological or moment-to-moment aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."
The Abhidhamma literature, with its various models and descriptions of arising mental states, is even more explicit in this connection. For example, from the introduction to U Thittila's translation of the Vibhanga, the second book of the Abhidhamma Pitika:
Thus far in Suttanta analysis the causal process has referred to the broad issue of existence in terms of life spans; however, for such a process as this to be stated by the Buddha to be a universal causal law it must be capable of being applied in a much narrower and more specific manner to be able to support so significant a claim. At the time of the Buddha, interest in the analysis pf the process and meaning of mental states was of the greatest importance not only to those who had given up the householder's life to follow the Buddha but also to the members of the many important heretical sects current at the time. All were ready and eager to discuss with skill not only such general statements, but to pinpoint particular and minute aspects of mental states to determine if these could also be shown to be subject to any such control of law. It is to this aspect of investigation that the whole of the second section of the analysis of causal relations is devoted. Analysis According to Abhidhamma re-states Paticcasamupadda as it applies in detail to each of the bad (akusala) states, to each of the good states (kusala), and also to those states which being the resultants of other active states are in themselves neither good nor bad (abyakata). This means many re-statements of the casual law in which factorial variations of some of the individual nidanas are given. Basically, however, all the conscious states dealt with are treated on a system of sixteen fundamental statements of the causal law. To deal with these in any detail at this time would be quite out of the question, but the whole system of analysis with its very specific definitions is designed to show that in the same way as the general cyclic continuity of process, stated in the Suttanta analysis, applies to existence as a whole, so also the arising of one state of consciousness as being dependent for its coming to be on the resultant of a preceding state, and that the resultant of that present state is to be the root cause of a future conscious state, demonstrates the action of the same law. (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii)
The reason I think the psychological aspects are so important is because that's where the work of the meditator is done, where we can observe these processes taking place in the present. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it in "A Verb for Nirvana," "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." And this process is primarily a mental one; so if we can learn to be more aware of this process, we can learn to master it through a combination of mindfulness training and other contemplative techniques.
Our mental states and sense of self aren't static things; and in my opinion, a correct analysis of dependent co-arising includes seeing that the process of their arising and ceasing is the same causally-determined process as that of beings, whether in terms of self-identification regarding the five clinging-aggregates or cosmological rebirth. The way I see it, the teachings on kamma and rebirth are useless if they don't also point towards where we can observe this process of renewed becoming taking place in the present, which is one of the reasons I think it more efficacious to approach them through a phenomenological lens. I imagine that there are methods found within modern psychology that are comparable and perhaps equally as effective, but many people still find Buddhist methods helpful (and even some modern psychologists are finding them useful as well).
And while I can definitely understand the difficulty in accepting concepts such as rebirth in their most literal sense, there are plenty of other things in Buddhism that can potentially have an immediate impact on our mental well-being in the here and now. However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view of rebirth one holds (if any) because the actual practice is still the same. What truly matters is what one does with the teachings, not what one believes about them. That's why I think the Buddha likens his teachings to a raft in MN 22:
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
a very buddhist christmas
I had a pretty nice Christmas this year, despite not having any official plans, spending almost the whole day at Miao Fa Chan Temple hanging out with a Buddhist monk from Thailand who was born at midnight on Dec. 24th and was originally named Christmas, his niece, Paddy, and three of his students, Junko, Alan, and Sally.
A couple of days before, during the Sunday service, Ajahn Fa Thai invited those of us who wanted to join him for evening chanting and meditation, which he usually does every Tuesday from 6:30-8:30pm, to do so since the 25th is also his birthday. I ended up going over at 10am, however, to help him make food for a local homeless shelter, which he does whenever they get a lot of food donations, especially on holidays (three of us also helped the day before to make a big pot of curry to take to the shelter, and I donated some cans of soup and toiletries I bought earlier, as well).
As it turned out, he didn't really need that much help as he started cooking early and a lot of other people showed up since it was his birthday. A couple of Thai families came by to offer food, as well, and we ended up having a big potluck lunch. I was actually planning on going back home after the meal and the food for the shelter was delivered, but I was invited by everyone to stay for tea and cookies and to just hang out (which is when I found out his original name was Christmas, although he eventually had his dad change it because he was teased so much about it).
Around 4:30pm, we all went to Bay Leaf, a local vegetarian restaurant, and were treated by Junko, Alan, and Sally to a vegetarian Christmas dinner. After that, we went back to the temple for the evening chanting and meditation. All in all, it was a nice way to spend the day; and because of all the time we spent together, I think they consider me part of the family now.
A couple of days before, during the Sunday service, Ajahn Fa Thai invited those of us who wanted to join him for evening chanting and meditation, which he usually does every Tuesday from 6:30-8:30pm, to do so since the 25th is also his birthday. I ended up going over at 10am, however, to help him make food for a local homeless shelter, which he does whenever they get a lot of food donations, especially on holidays (three of us also helped the day before to make a big pot of curry to take to the shelter, and I donated some cans of soup and toiletries I bought earlier, as well).
As it turned out, he didn't really need that much help as he started cooking early and a lot of other people showed up since it was his birthday. A couple of Thai families came by to offer food, as well, and we ended up having a big potluck lunch. I was actually planning on going back home after the meal and the food for the shelter was delivered, but I was invited by everyone to stay for tea and cookies and to just hang out (which is when I found out his original name was Christmas, although he eventually had his dad change it because he was teased so much about it).
Around 4:30pm, we all went to Bay Leaf, a local vegetarian restaurant, and were treated by Junko, Alan, and Sally to a vegetarian Christmas dinner. After that, we went back to the temple for the evening chanting and meditation. All in all, it was a nice way to spend the day; and because of all the time we spent together, I think they consider me part of the family now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)