Questions from: tanarong@econ.cmu.ac.th

1.  Please tell me what is the real meaning of 'meditation'?
Is it only 'concentration'? or more?  When people talk with me,
I would like to make sure we mean the same thing.
Thanks.

The word meditate originally comes from the Latin meditatus which means to cure, to remedy, to find the answer to a problem.  Nowadays one still uses it to mean to think, to ponder, to focus on something mentally.  In most religious senses it is to concentrate, to focus, to have one pointedness of the mind over a certain period.

In the Buddha's teachings it is much more refined, he taught that each instant of citta arises with a samathi (ekaggata) cetasika which can be at any level of strength- casual focus, barely perceptible, to the very strong focus of the jhana citta.  It can also arise with good or bad cetasika (as kusala or akusala) and be the right or wrong kind (arising with sati it is samma-samadhi as opposed to miccha-samadhi) and its object could be anything that the citta and cetasika it arises with is experiencing.

Of course if the person you're having the discussion with does not know what the Buddha taught about citta and cetasika it would be very hard for them to understand this aspect of meditation, so we would doubt that you would be speaking of the same thing when you use this word!

2.  Please tell me what you think of this passage from
Max Weber.   "India religiosity is the cradle of those religious ethics which have abnegated the world, theorectically, practically, and to the greatest extent.  It is also in India that the "technique" which corresponds to such abnegation has been most highly developed.  Monkhood, as well as the typical ascetic and contemplative manipulations, were not only first but also most consistently developed in India."

Max Weber has a tendency to over-generalize.  It is true that
Indians, long before the Buddha's times, realized that the world leads to kilesa through the six dvara and tried to shut them out through meditation (concentration on a certain object to block all other worldly experiences) as well as other forms of physical abnegations (no food, clothings etc.) which are still practiced to these days.

But the greatest religion India has ever produced, and once the most practiced in the world, (although now other religions have almost caught up with it), does not teach abnegation but comprehension, not just of the world but of the 'self', which no other religion does.  The Buddha taught that one need not deny the world in order to be a Buddhist, the order comprises 4 parties: bhikku, bhikkuni, upasaka and upasika, and in the tripitaka, he encouraged most people to continue as laypeople.  In the beginning, only those he knew were or would become arahanta were ordained.  For them, as well as those who remained at home, their respective lifestyles were the normal way to live, not abnegation.  By realizing what things really were they did not expect or force themselves to be different.  Those who still have desire for the 'comforts' of the world would not deny themselves but understand that in fact all were impermanent and not the 'self', nor would they do 'wrong' to others in order to get what they wished.  Those who have attained certain levels have already completely lost their desires of certain things automatically, therefore no abnegation was in process for them, since it would require self-denial, up to the ultimate arahantship where all kilesa were completely eradicated, all 'self', all 'mana'.  There could be no 'self-denial' where there was no 'self'.  The techniques he mentions would be learning, fully experiencing and attainment of multiple levels of wisdom in the Buddhist order, not any abnegations to practice.

Of course India, as well as other countries, also practices other religions-- the worship of one or multiple deities (for example Hinduism)-- which require absolute obedience to and binding with the god or gods (even Jesus told people to leave everything and follow him) and all kinds of practices and techniques which must be easier for Max Weber or any other religious communities to understand.

3.  I would like to know how much social environment affects man's behavior. How about a man born in a Buddhist nation?  How about to have the company of a good man who knows real Dhamma?  Is it predetermined from past life Karma that he has such a chance in this life?

We would like to try to answer question by question:

I would like to know how much social environment affects man's behavior.

It depends very much on the individual's accumulations.  Firstly, why was he born there and not elsewhere?  Why to such parents or the lack of them?  Why with such social environments?  These are all results of past accumulations, while the future of that individual depends also on his current conduct and present accumulations.

How about a man born in a Buddhist nation?

These days it does not guarantee a comprehension of the dhamma.   Perhaps being born a Buddhist is both beneficial and a handicap, we are more familiar with the languages used, Pali and Sanskrit, just as westerners are more familiar with Latin and Greek, but also more used to the modern or corrupted usage of certain terms: sanna is now used for promises rather than the original meaning of memory.

The individual's interest in studying the dhamma still depends on his accumulations, although it might be more convenient for some to find sources of information.   One other plus we can think of is the heritage angle, some people may start to study to see what is traditionally their religion, although that still does not guarantee that they would find the true source and not just so many rituals and ceremonies for specific occasions that has nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings.

And who knows how many might benefit from Tan Acharn's [Sujin Boriharnwanaket's] teachings from  the internet?

How about to have the company of a good man who knows real Dhamma?  Is it predetermined from the last life karma that he has such a chance in this life?

That is crucial in getting the right comprehension of Buddhism, which is ultimately based on wisdom rather than the blind performing of rituals.  That, the accumulation of kusala, perseverence in trying to find the truth, and not settling for anything without reasoning thoroughly first.

All vipaka are conditioned by past kamma, but in a process of  citta, each process has seven javana citta, the first producing results in the present lifetime, but since it is very weak, mainly only deeds done to an arahanta or the person's own parents would yield any immediate results.  The second to the seventh could produce results any time between the next to the next eternity of lifetimes (we think that the seventh javana produces results in the next life, but you'll have to check that- it is also weak, being the last of the series).  So while what you encounter is always the vipaka (or as you said, predeterminded) your reaction to it in the seven javana of the process of citta can be accompanied by panna or moha, be kusala or akusala, and these instants of javana-citta would be where you condition future vipaka and future accumulations.

People may hear Tan Acharn's radio program all over Thailand, but some might turn it off and listen to music, others might become interested and listen and think, follow the reasonings and find wisdom.  The dhamma of the good side flow together, help each other, lead to one another, as do the bad.  It is very difficult to go against the current, which is why one must accumulate as much kusala as possible.

4.  Is  man always selfish or self-interested all the time?
Is it rational to be so?  What does 'self' mean?

The self is called atta in Pali and it is the distinction between what everyone takes as 'I' or 'me' and the rest of the world (people, all objects and animals).  In that sense one is 'selfish' all the time because one has never known, throughout the infinity of lifetimes one had been born that one (or any other being) is only a conglomerate of citta, cetasika and rupa, not the 'self'.  The belief in a self is of course irrational, but the reality of non-self (or anatta) is beyond the reasoning of those who had never heard of the Buddha's teachings.  Only a Buddha could become self-enlightened.

5.  Is man's self-interest constant all the time from the time of the Lord Buddha more than 2500 years ago to the present time of consumerism?

With or without 'consumerism' man has always acted selfishly towards the 'world' around him.

Geologists and archeologists will tell you that the Sahara along the Nile, the Arabian desert along the Mesopotamia and even the greater part of the Gobi were once fertile forests and fields cultivated by ancient 'civilizations', then they probably did what we still do today: cut the trees, make wars that wipe out or displace farmers so that the desert gained and covered the land.  Every where man has been, the desert follows, even though probably there were always people who were fighting to do 'the right thing' but without 'wisdom' in the Buddhist sense there can be no real 'unselfishness', and ultimately, that is a very private affair.