Question and Answer page 2 / q&a1.htm

Kipfer Beat asked on 14^th December, 1999

Questions: Coming from a Christian background I am trying to understand the Buddhist concept and belief of creation. How was this world we live in created.
Another question I have is, who or what authority decides whether the meritorious deeds one does actually are accepted. Is there any concept of a judge or one who decides over the good or bad deeds of a person.

Ven. Dr. Rewata Dhamma answered on the 8^th January, 2000

1. In Buddhism, there is no room for any notion of a Creator or Creating divine Power. The Universe exists by means of the Law of cause and effect. No single cause an produce an effect. Ther are many causes which condition the arising of a particular effect. This effectin turn becomes a cause. Cause and effect are always interdepandant and inter-related. In this context,Buddhist concept of creation resembles that of modern Science to a degree.

2. According to the Buddhist view, no higher authority exist which passes Judgement a person's deeds as meritorious or it is not meritorious. Intead, it is the fruit of our own Kammic deeds which determines whether our actions have been good or bad. So, if one acts, speaks or thinks with a pure mind then this constitutes a meritorious deed. If on the other hand, one acts, speaks or thinks with an impure mind, then these activities are not meritorious. All of our actions are called Kamma (karma). Kamma itself and only Kamma is the Judge of a person's deeds.

Question No. (27)

Daniel Evans asked on 10^th March, 2000

Questions:How are Buddhists expected to treat the environment?

Venerable Weiponla, London answered on the 20^th March, 2000

Buddhists consider the welfare of all living creatures including themselves as well as those in their immediate environment. One of the five basic precepts is 'not to kill living beings' that includes all kinds of animals. So use of insecticdes and pest killers as well as weapons of mass destruction are avoided. They always try to live in harmony in a peaceful setting with less greed and anger, often extending loving-kindness to others, creating an atmostphere ideal for cohabitation. Buddhists practise meditation which helps in becoming aware of what is happening inside or outside their body. They will always be aware of creating bad kamma and so will refrain from acts which lead to destructon of lives in any forms.

So, I strongly believe that the place where the Buddha’s teachings prosper will be peaceful as the environment is treated with care and compassion.

Questions: Dear Venerable Monks, Why do most Buddhists not follow strict vegetarianism, when vegetarianism seems to be in accordance with the Buddhas' laws of Ahimsa? It was the great Buddhist Emporer Ashoka who first established a social vegetarian concsiounce in India, so why do only Hindus now have a strict code of vegetarianism? The Buddhas' contemporary Mahavira also established strict vegetarian in the Jaina religion to this day. It makes Buddhists seem rather lax and indifferent to the subject, like hypocrites when we are trying to teach Ahimsa and have the examples of other religions to live up to. A serious and thorough answer is needed. Thank you very very much. Nick.

Well! Most vegetarians think they are not responsible for killing any living beings for their diet, and non-vegetarians are involved in killing living beings indirectly. They are proud of themselves as compassionate ones and look down on non-vegetarians. If vegetarians deeply think that when farmers plow their farms many worm and various insects are killed, and then they have to spray their crop with insecticides and poisons so that the vegetables arrive on their dinner plates, they cannot deny the fact that vegetarians are also involved in killing living beings indirectly. Then those who follow Ahimsa strictly should stop eating vegetables.

What is the meaning of Ahimsa? I think "Ahimsa" means non-violence. It does not just mean killing any living beings. For example, if we milk cows, we violate the right of calves and cows. Cows want to feed their milk to their calves, not to human-beings, but human-beings are cruel to cows taking milk from them by force. Calves are disturbed in taking milk. So, we should think that taking milk or diary food does not coherence with Ahimsa. If one follows Ahimsa strictly, one should not take vegetables and milk. The Buddha did not impose any austerity to any body. Neither he praised vegetarianism nor look down on non-vegetarianism. His disciples are allowed to choose their own diet. But they should not eat any meat if they see or hear or suspect some animals are particularly killed for them. The monks are not allowed to enjoy vegetable or non-vegetable with craving.

Questions: I understand that fundamentally to be a Buddhist one has only to take refuge in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha) and conscientiously follow the five Precepts. In countries such as Thailand where Buddhism is widespread, almost all young boys/ men go through ceremonies to become Buddhists. As a Westerner who has recently discovered that I am a Buddhist, I was wondering if Theravada Buddhists have a ceremony for one to formally (state so in public) a Buddhist?

Yes Chuck, you can formally take the precepts with a Theravadan Buddhist monk at any monastery you can find. At that time it is also traditional to take some form of offering to the monks or monastery as well. Some people might offer lunch to the monks for that day or simply bring flowers or something that the monastery may need. It would also be good to take meditation instructions on that day too to complete the threefold training for a lay person on the Buddhist path - Generosity / sharing, morality and meditation. Welcome to the direct and middle path!

I used to study in Thailand and very much believe in the Theravadin aspects of Buddhism. However, I now live in Scotland and feel very isolated in that there are no centers of Theravadin contacts here.

I suppose my question would be: Do you think your center will ever expand to Glasgow? If not, can you suggest how I can 'practise' more easily when I am alone? I would appreciate your reply very much.

I have not known of any intention of our Centre to have a branch in Glasgow. I am not aware about Amaravati, especially their branch in Newcastle (Ratanagiri) may visit Glasgow. I think they have been visiting Edinburgh.

Theravada practice is very much individual and has no much disadvantage in being isolated from fellow Theravadins. The Sangha is of course not something you can compensate. Yet, many people in London are equally far from the Sangha due to their way of life.

Please keep chanting books, tapes, Dhamma talks, a small shrine at home and subscribe to Theravada newsletters. Listen to the chanting and Dhamma talks.

It is very important to have a good shrine at home with a Buddha statue (not so small). Offer flowers, water, light and incense daily. Make that a meditation hall as well. Meditate regularly every day; even though it may be a short session. Do not meditate in bed room or living room but in the shrine room as this will create a good habit and good environment. You do a certain thing in a certain place even at home.

Please compare for yourself three Theravadin homes of different nationalities; A Burmese has a shrine with a considerable big Buddha statue and his is like a mini-shrine hall of the monastery; A Sri Lankan Theravadin who keeps no shrine hall at home but a Buddha statue (sometime under the stair and sometime on top of the entrance, and sometime just nailed it to the wall; A Western Theravadin home where you find more books than a shrine hall-environment.

A Sri Lankan will have difficulty keeping the practice if he has no Centre to go to. A Burmese will keep the practice alive even at home. If you have the above mentioned things, you will have the good thing from all of them. The only thing you need to do is to visit a monastery once in a while during important occasions to keep in touch with the Sangha and community.

I am a Theravada buddhist but my family is Mahayana followers. They encouraged me to chant maha karuna dharani (ta-pei-chou) again and again for many months. I do believe that this sutta chanting can bring some benefits to me. However, I do not seek special favours from bodhisatvas. I only take refuges to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and rely upon my own effort to gain enlightenment. What should I do to deal with this problem?

According to your Email, there is different philosophy between you and your family. However both of you are right. Nowadays many people do not pay much attention to religion in their day to day social affairs as they came from different social and religious back ground. There will always be some problems in our daily life which may not be beds of roses for all. But those conflicts that may arise can be overcome. Please carry on with your own belief. But try to avoid confrontation with parents as well as your family if possible.

Both Buddhism and modern science are very similar in terms of describing the creation of the universe as a process of cause and effect.

Physics has been able to trace the process of creation to the smallest fraction of a second following the "big bang", and new types of subatomic particles are being discovered on an almost daily basis. However self-congratulatory many scientists may seem, they have NOT discovered the origin of the cosmos! Though they may discover smaller and smaller particles and divide time into smaller and smaller segments, the questions of what matter is "made of" , and what existed BEFORE the "big bang" remain.

If one truly believes in the law of cause and effect, it goes to follow that there must be an "initial cause". Judeo-Christian thought deals with these questions about the process of creation by inventing myths that have no correlation with the objective data collected by serious scientists (Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein...). How does Buddhism deal with the First Cause mystery?

The definition of the word 'Mystery' is something not understood or beyond understanding. So, I should honestly say that your question is beyond my understanding.

In the Tipitaka, Samyutta Nikaya, there are some Suttas that mentioned unanswered questions by the Buddha. To review the Buddha’ answer to the similar Questions I would like to recommend you to read “Did the Buddha preach on all subjects?” and " How the caste system appeared on the Earth" in my work of “The Way to Social Harmony". Even though they tried to find what existed BEFORE smaller and smaller the "big bang" and what matter is "made of". I do not think we can get the answer of it forever. In the Abhidhamma teaching, things are made of the Four elementary material qualities: Hard and softness, cohesiveness, temperature and motion and support. So, the universe is made of the four basic elements.

Question No. (33)

Question

Larry asked on 12^thJuly, 2000

I've heard Nibbana described as the "annihilation of the self". Does this mean that the consciousness simply "winks out of existence" once the cycle of death and rebirth is complete? If so, then what is the difference between Buddhism and atheism? Why should the obliteration of all that I am (through however many lifetimes) be my ultimate goal?:

Venerable Ashin Acara, USA, answered on the 21^st July, 2000

       Nibbana is Pali Word combination of Ni+Vana=(Nibbana) or (Nirvana )
       1) Ni is a negative particle.Vana Means craving or weaving.
        2) It is called Nibbana as it is a departure (Ni ) from that craving which is called Vana (Lust) (see abhidhammatthasangaha Chapter 6 Nibbana)
       3) Nibbana is also explained as the extinction of the fire of lust (Lobha) , Hatred(Dosa) and delusion (Moha)
4) Nibbana , in one sense , may be interpreted as the extinction of these flames. One must not thereby infer that Nibbana is nothing but the extinction of these flames. The means should be differentiated from the end. Here the extinction of the flames is the means of attaining Nibbana.
       5) An unborn (ajata) Unoriginated (abhuta) Unmade (akata) and non-conditioned state (asankhata) (Udana and Itivuttaka ). The Nibbana of Buddhist is, therefore, neither a state of nothingness, nor a mere cessation .
        6) Nibbana is attainable in this present life itself if the seeker fits himself for it. Buddhism nowhere states that its ultimate goal can be reached only in a life beyond. Therefore the difference between the Buddhist conception of Nibbana and the Non-Buddhist conception of an eternal heaven which is attainable only after death.
       Buddhism can neither be called Eternalism nor Nihilism. In Nibbana nothing is eternalized nor is anything annihilated. According to these definations Nibbana is not only mere "annihilation of the self". Nibbana being non-conditioned is eternal-desirable and happy. So the best way to realize nibbana is try to eradicate Self and doubt. Then you will see the first stage of sainthood. Also try to realize Four noble truths and three significant concepts of Buddhism ( Impermanence, suffering, and non -self). Nibbana is libration of all defilements or bondages.Your ultimate goal, not just the obliteration of all. It (Nibbana), being non-conditioned is eternal-desirable and happy .That's why obliteration of 11 fires is your ultimate goal .

Question No. (34)

Larry asked on 2^nd August, 2000

Questions:
What is the difference between the Hindu concept of Bramha or "World Soul" and the Buddhist view of the afterlife? Do we retain any of our individuality upon reaching Nibbana?

Ven. Pannadipa answered on the 8^th August, 2000

Let's deal in the first place with spellings and their translations within this relevant context. Brahma (in its spelling with a symbol 'long wave'"~" like this on the final "a" )in Hinduism is not recognized as the 'World Soul' but the god.Yet, Brahman,a technical term is, by noted scholars,translated as "Supernatural power or the absolute world spirit." Therefore this spelling and its translation will serve the purpose regarding your questions. All individual souls dweling in the animate and the inanimate, according to Hinduism, will eventually be united with the Absolute world spirit or the World Soul,also called 'Moksha' through a series of transmigration from one life to the another. And it is said that these souls cannot be destroyed. The Buddhist view of next life is something like sending a fax through a machinery system to each other. You cannot say that the message you receive in the form of paper is either different or identical from the original one(Na ca so, na ca anno in Pali).Yet the message is already in your hand and it has nothing to do with continuity of souls and transmigration as found in Hinduism. No individuality is retained either upon reaching Nibbana or life after death for the so called individuality is nothing but changing process of mind and matter ( Nama-rupa ).

Question No. (35)

Karen asked on 19^th August, 2000

Questions:
I have been told I have a gift to be able to heal and a medium ability. The latter I have not experienced, but the first I find I get very hot hands, especially if someone tells me they have pain and I put my hands over the area, they too have said they feel heat. Is this right to be able to do this. I am trying to understand how to be a Buddhist. I believe in compasion and love for all, even people I dislike, or have caused me upset in the past. How would I go to a monestary to seek guidance, do I ring up or just turn up. I believe the nearest to me is Wigan I live in West Yorkshire. Please try to find it in your heart to help me by answereing this question.

Ven. Sayadaw Dr. Rewata Dhamma answered on the 20^th August, 2000

I hope if you try to develop your ability through meditation, any Theravada meditation system will help to you. But If you want to be kind for everyone, then you may need to practice the Metta meditation which is the development of loving-kindness. If you want to know more about it you can write or meet some one who practise this meditation. With Metta

I am Korean lay buddhist, aged 29. Now I live in Beijing, China. May I ask you a question about the 3rd of the 5 Buddhist precepts?

In the third of the five buddhist precepts, it does not mention anything about violating/breaking the 3rd precept if a buddhist having sexual intercourse with a prostitute. However, even though having sex with a prostitute may not be classified under this precept, a good buddhist knows that this is an unwholesome action. The word "Kamesu-micchacara"(in Pali) means sensual craving or indulgence, specifically refers to wrongful sexual relations, such as committing adultery with somebody else husband or wife.

The question is: If a buddhist calls a call-girl or prostitute and later having sex with her (he pays for it with money), does he breaking the third of the 5 buddhist precepts? and if so, why? Please enlighten me on this case.

Thank you for your reply. With metta and Big greeting: Yours In the Dhamma Kim Han Sang

Sometimes we can be so much concerned about the letter (literary meaning) of the precepts and thus overlook their spirit. The third precept is to protect and promote a healthy family, train individuals to be responsible in having sex. This is the spirit of the third precept.

Having sex with a prostitute can be seem irresponsible action as both are indulging only for selfish desire which is extreme compared with sex within marital boundary or stable relationship.

Going for prostitute is about making use of money in an irresponsible way, it is almost womanising. The act of womanising is condemned in more than one discourses by the Buddha. It can lead to business being ruined, one being distracted from work, putting oneself in a dangerous situation, brining defamation etc.

The third precept simply mentions the principle, not singling out any particular type of man or woman, not prostitute ( as far as I understand). Though the Buddha did mention the evils of prostitution, he did not I believe intend to single out prostitution as the source of all evils, or for any breaking temptation of the third precepts.

Sex without a proper and socially recognised relationship is bad not only for society but for indiviuals involved as well.

Sex can be a good slave or a cruel master of human beings. This precept is to highlight that point, and to help lay people tread the Path of the Dhamma while enjoying sexual intercourse. It is about controlling one's desire as it were. Desire has no limit and we have to put a limit to it for the sake of our long term happiness.

Kamesu-micchacara has been translated as adultery to give some understanding in a society where family value is strong. Adultery was seen as social evil in India those days, today and also in many parts of the world. Those societies prevent having sex before marraige. The only wrong doing in sexual intercourse means adultery. But this translation although is not wrong yet is not perfect. The thrid precept does not encourage any irresponsible sex, man or woman. Although prostitution as a profession is dominated by women sex workers, this precept does not mention gender, and as a result avaoids discrimination on gender basis.

The third precept, like any other precepts, comes under "Way of life" (Sila) in the Noble Eightfold Path. This Way of Life is strengthened only with "the Right Attitude towards that Way of Life" (Pannya)- which are the first two factors of the Eightfold Path. The Right Attitude or Understanding of this Way of Life (refraining from irresponsible sex) will be made sustained by training the mind (Samadhi) through some kind of meditation. Thus Sila, Samdhai and Pannya form the three aspects of this third precepts. So do they of other precepts. Committing oneself only to responsible sex is a way of life. This way of life will be strengthened, made possible and bring happiness when Samadhi and Pannya are present to support it.

Question No. (38)

Colin asked on 28^th October, 2000

Do you thimk it is possible for a Buddhist to live in somwhere like England where they are surrounded by advertising, causing craving, which is against your teachings (3 Universal truths)?

Venerable Ashin Acara, USA, answered on the 1^st November, 2000

A Buddhist can live in big cities such as London and New York which are full of advertising, stimulating much craving, if he can focus and achieve concentration of mind. The Lord Buddha never criticized lay persons for living in big cities. He encouraged the people to choose a place which is suitable for business, education and generation of good deeds. ( Mangala Sutta or 38 auspicious blessings) But, the Buddha taught us to live with mind concentration purification wherever you live.The most important Buddhist Teaching is to avoid all kinds of evil deeds, to perform good deeds and to purify the mind. The significance of the Buddhist teaching is impermanence, suffering, and selflessness or non-self. If you realize the Five Aggregates and the Four Noble Truths, you wouldn't be greedy for material things. Contentment is very important for a Buddhist you should be content with what you already have.

Even the city does not have much advertising, the human world is often full of material things which you may grasp with craving mind. We should live with wisdom and focused mind. We have to remind constantly that I, you, me and mine is not I, not you, not me, not mine. It is only the five aggregates of mind and matters. We should be mindful that everything is impermanent, and that impermance means suffering. A Buddhist can still live happily in big cities if he is mindful of impermnant nature of all material things.

Question No. (39)

A highlander (Jim) asked on 20^th October, 2000

Questions: I am new to Buddhism and would like to know if buddhism is a religion or a philosophy of life. I prefer to think of it as a philosophy of life. How should I view it?
My second question is, what practices or studies should I do on a daily basis so that my study of buddhism moves from study only to practice?

Venerable Dhammasami, answered on the 9^th November, 2000

Dear Jim,

Thanks for the question. It is a practical question that many face at this stage.

There have been endless arguments as to if Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. If you see a religion through a definition of a Christian author, Buddhism is not a religion, for he (the author) defines a religion as a belief in God. It is not something is wrong with Buddhism but his (the author's) own definition.

The British House of Common was one of the early Western intitutions to debate on this question. Although the question has been settled to many, some still go on debating with their fixed opinion of what a religion should, rather than what Religion is or has been in this world.

It is a dry academic argument to say that Buddhism is NOT a religion because it does not believe in God. The nature of religion has been wider than the definition of the "Religion" can cover.

Academically, you may say that all religions believe in supernatural powers. If a religion is defined in this way, then there is no problem seeing Buddhism as a religion. Some Buddhist achievements attained through meditation are supernatural; also our belief in past kamma (karma) and rebirths are also supernatural.

Buddhism provides way of life, and a system of belief; and therefore is perfectly within the nature of religion. Sila (ethical conducts or moral precepts) are a good example of what Buddhism can offer. There are precepts for a householder, and there are different ones for the renouncers. We emphasise a lot on these, that they become a way of life.

Three of the eight constituents of the Noble Eightfold Path represent this (Sila) way of life: They are, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.

Doing the right thing is NOT enough for a mere action does not count without a good motive behind it. Buddhism does not preach practising rituals or following precepts for their own sake. A good and pure intention must be present. Merely performing a ritual was considered Karma in pre-Buddhist times. The Buddha changed that. He said unless there is a good intention, there is not good action that can bring results. NO good kamma without good intention, is what he was trying to say.

To enable us to see good from bad, to develop pure and good motives, we are given a way of thinking (seeing) things. This is a philosophical side of Buddhist practice. Two of the Eight factors in the Path explain this philosophical dimension of Buddhism. In Pali this is called Dassana or darshna in Sankrit. Sometime the word ditthi is used. You do not need to analyse these alien terms if you do not feel like.

To strengthen our mind in our effort to achieve this philosophy of life, we need to train our mind; that programme is called "meditation" that represent by the remaining factors of the Path. If you study the eight factors in detail, you will make sense of what I am saying very easily.

So, a way of life (Sila/magga) that can fall in line withing the chracteristics of a religion, philosophy of the way of life we choose to live (Panna) and the way to train our mind to live that life and to attain that philosophy (samadhi). With these three things, I think Buddhism is both a religion in practical sense and a philosophy in pragmatic sense.

The Buddha calls his teachings as a PATH (magga) leading to the end of suffering. Indeed, if a religion works or not, we are asked to judge if it helps us reduce and in the end get rid of suffering.

The end of suffering is called enlightenment, which the Buddha often describes it as " a release through wisdom".

A way of life is to reduce problem and increase happiness. Unless we see (the task of philosophy) that problem increasing unhappiness, we are not likely to see the reduction of suffering; not to mention its end.

I hope this makes some sense.

Regarding the second part of your question; I suggest that you learn meditation properly under the guidance of a teacher. Interact with other Buddhists, Asian and Europeans. A practice is something we see and develop in ourselves. Once you have been to temples, talked to monks and other practitioners, you will come to know more practical problems. That is where you begin.

Buddhism is practised both in communal and soteriological way. There are those who say that it can be done only soteriologically. I disagree with that. There are things that I have not learnt and cannot do so from books but from living with other members of Buddhist Sangha.

By interacting with more Buddhists you will come to see where and how to make use of your study. This is not a big problem. But it is a part of the process.

With Metta, Venerable Dhammasami

Question No. (40)

Rhimes asked on 17^thDecember, 2000

Questions: How does the process of kamma end at the attainment of Nibbana? Does all previous kamma end, or does the ability to make kamma end? In which case, how is it all destroyed at parinibbana, if there is still previous kamma?

Answer: by Venerable Bodhidhamma, London on the 30^th December, 2000

Definition : kamma is action (thought, word or deed). The result of kamma is called vipaka.

1a. The process of kamma is the process of doing. If it's by an unenlightened person, this doing is motivated through a the notion of a self. A relationship to the world out there and in here is developed along the lines of identity (me) and possession (mine). So long as there is a 'me' who possesses things, so long will there be accumulation (greed), fear of loss of that accumulation and defence of that accumulation (aversion - fight and flight). When there is no more a 'me' who acts, there is no more identity or possession. Therefore, upon enlightenment all acts of kamma based on the notion of a self come to an end. Consciousness is liberated, unshackled, untied from the world out there and the mental world in here. They both become the environment, inner and outer, within which the enlightened consciousness can perform kamma (action).

1b. Kamma is not to be confused with vipaka, the result of kamma. The results of past kamma (doings) keep cropping up, but, please note! it is not necessary to suffer all the results coming from 'out there' before we can be enlightened. What is necessary is to purify all the vipaka (results) in here, the mind, which are our defilements (kilesa) and latent tendencies (anusaya) and most deep of all, the floods (asava).

2a. Hence, there arises a distinction between the doing (kamma) of an unenlightened being and the kamma of an enlightened being.

2b. The kamma created by an unenlightened being sustains the notion of a self. So long as there is this belief, there will always be a self to take rebirth. When the self is gone, there is no rebirth for there is 'no-one' to want it.

2c. An enlightened being still acts in the world, but their actions do not come from the seat of a delusive self, but from the seat of wisdom, seeing and knowing things as they really are. Nothing is done with attachment. Nothing is done with the notion of an 'Me' or 'Mine'. Therefore, there is no accumulation of personal kamma, no volitional conditions (sankhara) derived of delusion and sustained by greed and aversion.

2d. The vipaka that needs to be purified is that accumulated in the mind. Outer results of deluded, thatis both good and bad past kammic actions (technically, kusala/akusala kamma), are not what have to be 'purified'. It is the inner 'sankhara' - the volitional formations - emotions and thoughts - that have to be purified. Once purified, consciousness (sati) with its intuitive intelligence (panna) can see things as they really are, and that supreme state, transcendent of the phenomenal world, is attained. Yet, as a living enlightened being, still acting in the world, there is also imminence. Also engagement. Hence the compassion action (kamma) of a Buddha.

2e. Once the physical and mental organism dies, there is no attraction for that liberated consciousness to be drawn back into a phenomenal existence. Exactly what the experience of parinibbana is, can only be known by experience. But it is not annihilation!

3a. Therefore, the process of kamma, the actions of an unenlightened being, and all previous results of kamma as mental properties i.e.defilements (kilesa), latent tendencies (anusaya), the floods (asava), which arise from the deluded notion of a self come to an end upon the moment of Path and Fruit Attainment of Arahatship.

3b. The results from previous unenlightened kamma as coming from the world rather than inwardly from the mind, can manifest even after enlightenment, witness the murder of Mogallana Thera. But they need not necessarily do so. And at Parinibbana, we can no longer talk of kammic acts being performed or vipaka suffered.

3c. For the enlightened being, the ability to act in the world - kamma - is not lost, but simply purified of a notion of a self, or a person, doing it. This is technically called kriya kamma (functional kamma).

Questions: I would be grateful if you could explain to me how one becomes a Buddhists. I have read about taking refuge and following precepts. Is there some ceremony to undertake as in other Religions, it seems a simple thing to say, "I am a Buddhist." Many Thanks for this help.

The ceremony can be very simple with a monk(s) administering the Triple Gems and Five Precepts. You may invite any friends to support you, especially those who are already practising Buddhist way of life. The ceremony is to reaffirm your belief in the Triple Gems. There are three ways of accomplishing things; through mind, words and physical actions. As the Buddha was from India, we follow the Indian tradition of paying respect which is to bow down three times in front of a Buddha statue. Reflecting on his words and way of life, being grateful to him for what we can know about the Dhamma, we bow down three times to a Buddha statue to show our respect and gratitude.

Then we say the formula of Triple Gems and Five Precepts, this is to express in words what we believe or have already accepted in minds. The most imprtant thing is to understand the Buddha and his teaching, to draw aspiration from it. This is about taking the Triple Gem through and in our mind. People around will then recognise and see you as a follower of the Buddha. It is very imprtant to have this ceremony. Nothing much special. But according to the traditions, we offer light (candle) to the Buddha, also flower and incent. Many also prefer to offer either soft drink or water in the evening or food before noon. You then should ask a monk to talk about the Dhamma to you. If there are a few monks, they normally do a chanting for you to mark the occasion and also to bless you. I hope this gives you some idea about the ceremony. With Metta,

Questions: Does Buddhism believe in the existence of the soul? If not, what is it that re-incarnates? If a person’s "identity" does not make the transition after death, then why do some people remember past lives?

Answer: The concept of ‘soul’ is always qualified with eternality and immutability. The eternal and immutable characteristics of the soul are incompatible with the Buddhist concept of Anicca (impermanence). There are three cardinal virtues in Buddhism, viz. Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (suffering), and Anatta (non-substantiality or non-soul). On the principle of Anicca, Buddhism cannot accept a soul or any such entity whatsoever that is eternal and immutable. For Buddhists, whatever you pick up, it must be subject to the principle of change. According to Buddhism, there is no entity either in the phenomenal or nominal world which is immutable and eternal.

The task of a Buddhist is to know the true nature of things, the reality as it is. If we say that there is an ‘X’. A Buddhist must say that ‘I know that there is an X’ or ‘this is an X’, and not that ‘I believe in X’ or ‘I believe that there is an X’. The question of belief is ruled out on Buddhist platform. Thus we can maintain that Buddhism is grounded in reason, knowledge and wisdom, and not in belief.

If at all Buddhism is to accept something called ‘belief’, it must be a hypothesis which is to be verified later by personal experience as it is done in the case of natural sciences. In other words, the task of a Buddhist is to observe objectively and know the reality in its true nature that manifest in the (psychophysical) phenomenal world.

The concept of re-incarnation of an eternal entity such as ‘soul’ is not accepted in Buddhism. But Buddhism does maintain the continuity of individuality in successive lives. According to Buddhism, the continuity of individuality is not an eternal and immutable entity. It is only the ever-changing psychophysical aggregates that continue in successive lives. The Buddhist position is not that of ‘identity’ or of ‘difference’, but it is a continuity based on the past psychophysical aggregates and kammic forces. For clarity of the idea in question, let’s take an example. Suppose Mr. X is a 60 years old man. We may put a question - 'Is 60 years old Mr. X the same person when he was 20 years of age?' Definitely, we cannot say that the 20 years old Mr. X is the same person even after 40 years, nor can we maintain that they are totally different, but we can certainly say that there is a continuity in the person Mr. X which is neither a case of 'identity' nor that of 'difference'.

Following the same line of thought, Buddhism admits the possibility of continuation of Mr. X even after death, that is, ‘rebirth’ or better ‘re-becoming’ is accepted in Buddhism. But Mr. X in the next life is not identical with the Mr. X of the past, nor are they totally different.

Someone may pose a question that - "If there is no immutable entity in Buddhism to transmigrate from one life to another, how does Buddhism explain rebirth and the experiences and memories of past lives?"

According to Buddhism, all things of the world can ultimately be subsumed under two realities viz. Nama (mental) and Rupa (physical). A living being (plants exempted) is constituted of five aggregates, of these, four are mental and one is physical aggregate. Rupa is the physical aggregate and the Nama or mental aggregates are vedana (sensation), sañña (cognition), sankhara (reaction or disposition) and viññana (consciousness). Throughout one’s life all these five aggregates collectively maintain the continuation of individuality called person or being. But at the moment of death, out of these four mental aggregates there arises an entity called Cuti Citta or the death consciousness, the last citta of this life. Under the influence of a person’s wholesome and unwholesome kammic force, this Cuti Citta continues even after death embodying all kammic characteristics of the past. However, it should be noted here that this Cuti Citta is not to be identified with an eternal soul or anything of that sort. Cuti Citta has the characteristics of change. All the five aggregates just mentioned, undergo a continuous process of change. It is this Cuti Citta which is known as Patisandhi Citta (rebirth linking consciousness) or a new consciousness in the next life.

Now the question arises here is - "How does the Cuti Citta of this life become the Patisandhi Citta of the next (new) life?"

It is maintained that the parents provide the physical base such as sperm and ovum or any such physical base. The kammic force directs the Cuti Citta to its appropriate parents in fitting plane of existence. At the moment of death the individual does not have freedom of choice. He or she will be under the spell of his or her kammic forces (past accumulated impressions and habits). When this Cuti Citta gets associated with the physical base of sperm and ovum there begins a new life. As soon as the mental entity of Cuti Citta comes in touch with the physical base of sperm and ovum, all the five aggregates again sprout and begin to function collectively. That is how these five aggregates (a being) continue to revolve, life after life, around the cycle of birth and death.

Just like a potential mango seed when it comes in contact with fertile soil, moisture and appropriate environment, all inherent qualities such as leaves, branches, flowers etc. begin to manifest and becomes a full fledged mango tree. In the same way, when the mental entity of Cuti Citta of the past comes in touch with the physical entity (sperm and ovum) of the present, all the five aggregates begin to manifest and a full fledged being is the result. The remembrance of memories and experiences of past lives is possible, because the Cuti Citta embodies all the past impressions and habits. However, it should be noted that the Cuti Citta or Patisandhi Citta or any other aggregate does not stand the same in two successive moments. They continuously undergo a change.

There arises another question - "Who or what directs the Cuti Citta to the appropriate place and appropriate parents in two successive lives?"

There is no Supernatural Being or God in Buddhism who directs the so-called destiny or lives of men. Buddhism maintains that everything happens according to the impartial and universal law of nature. When I throw a ball upward, it is not that there is a God siting somewhere in the sky and pushes the ball downwards. The ball falls downward owing to the law of gravitation, the universal law of nature. Once an action is performed, the consequences follow it.

So it is the law of kamma, the universal law of nature which directs a person to the appropriate place and parents. Whatever action either wholesome or unwholesome, once it is performed, the result or consequences must follow. There is no escape, no redemption by any Supernatural Being, one must reap the result of an action already done. Thus we ourselves are responsible for the action we do and the results we reap. An immoral and undisciplined man can never have peace of mind, it is the law of nature. No God or Supernatural power in the universe can make him happy. It is in the law of nature that anger, hatred, jealousy, ill will and other defilements always bring sufferings. I cannot be angry and happy at the same time. It is against the law of nature. Thus, the task of a Buddhist is to know with absolute clarity the causal relationships of different phenomena, that is, to know how things are causally related. If I am disciplined and have a pure mind full of love and compassion, I'll be rewarded by nature itself. I'll be a happy person. No God can make me a miserable man. Thus a Buddhist endeavours to know the working of the law of nature and live in harmony with it.

It is not important for a Buddhist whether there is a God or no God, whether there is a soul or no soul. A Buddhist adheres to the moral code of conduct. Purifying oneself at the mental, vocal and physical level is the goal of every Buddhist. It is because only by eradicating all impurities, defilements and pollutants that we can have peace of mind, harmony in the society and maintain mental and physical health perfectly. Thus it is clear that Buddhism is not a soul-based or God centered religion. Buddhism is a way of life based on reason, knowledge and wisdom.

Questions: I understand that the five aggregates are what causes us to believe in a self. I have read a comment by a well respected monk that has caused me some confusion. He says, "the teaching on not-self is more a strategy, a technique of perception... a way of perceiving things that involves no self-identification, no sense that 'I am',no attachment to 'I' or 'mine.' So my question is, Is the teaching on non-self to be understood as there is no-self or as technique of perception or both?

Answer: The words " ...a strategy, a technique of perception.. a way of perceiving things that involves no self-identification,.." are to put the teaching of non-self in western way.

If this way of putting things into words confuses you, you may start a new approach altogether. And then pick up again this explanation once you have understood the teaching of non-self.

To say that the five aggregates cuase us to believe in a self, would be too generalising! The arahants have five aggregates as well, but theirs cause no more belief in 'self'.

The five aggregates are all what we have as human beings. They exist in reality and actually what really exist are only the five aggregates as far as the Buddha's teachings are concerned.

In these five aggregates, the Buddha asked, is it proper to call physical part a self or to take feeling as self. The notion of self arises when we view things (our life, achievement, failure etc), without seeing their conditioning process, in which things are conditioned to arise and then go, and only to arise again when conditions are met.

It is through the normal working process of the five aggregates that we creat an identity. We see ourselves as a failure, sticking to that created identity of failure and lose all our confidence. This is just an example. People can create an identity of themselves as being hurt by some one and live in the "created self".

The desire to identify something as belonging to us creates the notion of self, and the notion of self strenthens that desire. Here is a circle.

Before we see the uselessness or pointlessness of this circle operating we would not sit and look at our mind. And before we do that, it is not likely that we will see that whatever arises, good or bad, is always changing. Unless we see that nature of change in every sphere of our life, the teaching of non-self remains a theory. I am trying to explain what you already know, dukkha, anicca and anatta. Instead of anicca, dukkha and anatta.

What is easy to prove is non-self and what is hard to prove is self. This has to be taken not in conventional truth but in impersonal reality.

BUDDHISM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS