From: Dan Dalthorp  <dhd5@c...>
              Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 4:48am
              Subject: "He thinks THIS! He conceives THAT!"

From time to time, I find it interesting to compare Theravada teachings with Christian teachings. By and large, I've found a large degree of concord between the two traditions, although the language and approaches are strikingly dissimilar.
 

Christianity is focused on God, from the very first page in the Bible, when God created light, the universe, men etc.  The motivation for men is to fear and love God and total obeisance, 'his will be done'; disobedience and loving other Gods are punishable by hell, unless the lost sheep repents.

Well, God does not exist in Buddhism, everything arises because of conditions, the universe is formed and destroyed by conditions over and over, and men are born and reborn of their own kamma.  Even brahma who are considered gods by some, or deva who can perform miracles, could not create a man, or kill him, if it were not his kamma to die or be born that way.  With the right conditions, however, anything is possible.  The Buddha taught that we have all been born everywhere from the lowest hell to the highest brahma heavens (except for one where only the anagami would be reborn, if I remember correctly).

But the most important difference between Buddhism and any other teachings is that he taught that the soul is not one continuous consciousness that arise at birth and passes to heaven/hell/purgatory.  It is what are normally imperceptible, extremely rapidly arising and falling away instants of intelligence/consciousness in what is called khanika marana (the death that occurs each instant of citta), over which no one has control whatever.  Instants of seeing and hearing at this moment could never last, they change and can never be brought back in exactly the same way again.

Because of the rapidity of the succession of the citta, we think we see and hear at the same time.  In fact, they are interposed by instants of citta through the mind door.  That is what the first, weakest and lowest vipassana nana manifests: the differences between the rupa that arise through the five dvara and the mind dvara, as the nama-rupa-paricheda-nana (the complete separation of the nama and the rupa).  This Knowledge could only come from a very highly developed degree of knowledge of things as they really are, accumulated little by little through satipatthana.

Satipatthana is also taught in no other religion in the world- how could they, since they regard the soul as an entity, not instants of succeeding citta?  But it can be proven by anyone for himself, (ehipassiko- come try it out, or 'check it out!', as Betty would say,) we all have eyes, ears, noses, tongues, body sense and minds.  We would never be able to experience anything at all without them.  However, our kamma created them and we are presently their slaves, thinking that they are our selves.  By knowing them as they really are, as well as their individual kinds of aramana, we could come to see them as they really are: conditioned realities that arise and fall away.  Then where are the beloved, unique and interesting selves?

And though we might think we understand the theories, it is only the right level of understanding that could really bring the real instant of knowledge that lessen the clinging to the self, starting with the knowledge that will leave no more uncertainty that we are indeed only nama and rupa, experiencing the normally hidden nama of the mano dvara.  But that knowledge could only be reached by studying realities as they really are, as they arise at this moment around us, the real characteristics of visible objects before us, so different from sound, sight, touch.  These tiny instants of knowledge would accumulate and grow towards the strength when realization could arise, although one could never know when that will happen.  But without the study, the knowledge would never grow to that level at all and we would still be clinging to the self even though we understood the theory on the intellectual level perfectly.

           From: kelvin liew peng chuan  <sampuna@h...>
           Date: Tue Jan 9, 2001 5:23am
           Subject: Dan's view

I have a similar view with Dan but I'm quite clear about the distance that sets the Dhamma apart frm others.  I wonder if any of you guys read an article on the net condemming the Dhamma?  (eg. Catholic Appologetics)  From there you can see the striking difference.  I believe the Dhamma as proclaimed by the Teacher is the most unique as every phenomenon is explainable and there are no hidden unfigured out things like mysteries.  This is also the only teaching that challenges humans to face suffering straight in the face.

 
The main difference between Buddhism and other religions is that most others do not have bhavana.  All religions have dana (giving) and sila (rules to behave in society) to some extent, but without the knowledge of what the citta is bhavana cannot be rightly developed.  Before the Buddha bhavana as in samatha bhavana was taught since they knew the difference between kusala and akusala.  But they did not realize that there was no self doing the practice.  The moments of doing the samatha are exempt from kilesa of any kind, but having attained the jhana of different levels, they had the belief of the self who had attained, with such purity.  Mana and all the latent kilesa would still be there, so when the conditions come, they would be cause for the coarser kilesa to arise again, so that they are always prisoners of samsara.  They could not end rebirth, though as the result of the jhana they might be born a brahma for an eternity in time.

After the vipaka (result of kamma, here the jhana citta) of being born in the brahma world had finished giving results, one could be born a human again, and have to begin over again.  However, with the Buddha's teachings, vipassana, bhavana was taken to the ultimate level, where rebirth is completely ended.  The self is shown not to exist and the 'practice' is towards the realization of this truth, no matter with samatha or any kusala activities occurring simultaneously or not.  Without the self, dana is not only giving for the good of others, but not to be attached to what is 'ours' as well.  Sila is not only to refrain from ill deeds (physical and verbal) but to see our accumulations (mental) more clearly as well.  And bhavana need not be for those who live in the conditions favorable to the jhana arising such as live in the right place, wear the right clothing and eat the right food, etc. (in order to avoid the hindrances that keep the jhana from arising) which could only exist in an ascetic or recluse's life, but for anyone who studies realities as they really are.  The hindrances to vipassana are far fewer, and it can be practiced anywhere, unlike samatha, so that in a way the physical conditions are much easier to fulfil.  Nevertheless, the self could be much harder to eradicate, depending on the individual's accumulations.

For some individuals avid of results, sitting still might seem more peaceful than moving about, such as going to work, but vipassana is such a personal practice that people moving about might be more mindful than sitting with lobha expecting things to happen.  When the jhana do arise, they could be cause for more lobha, clinging to such refined states of the citta.  The higher level of accumulated satipatthana also automatically bring the jhana citta with the arising of the nana, without ever practicing samatha bhavana (except as momentary development along with vipassana in daily life, when sati also arises with ekaggata cetasika in the citta).  In other words, vipassana encompasses samatha, but not the other way around, otherwise the Buddha's teachers, Aralatapas and Utakatapas would have attained as well.  As it is they were born in the brahma plane and are there to this day.

This is why the Buddha's teachings could never be the same as any other teaching on earth, it is unique because of the provability, profundity as well as the person who taught it, who accumulated conditions towards Buddhahood over zillions of centuries.  His teachings always remind us to study the present moment as realities arise through the six dvara no matter where we are.  Studying his teachings are more interesting to me more than trying to read between the lines for other teachings' similitude to Buddhism, personally.  However, we all have our individual accumulations, so whatever helps one understand the Dhamma better!

From: Dan Dalthorp  <dhd5@c...>
Date: Fri Jan 12, 2001 5:27am
Subject: Re: Dan's view

I think it is by and large more useful and interesting to study Buddhism too. However, cultivating an understanding of other traditions can help foster tolerance (khanti) and appreciation (mudita) toward people whose views differ from ours. Also, a study of other traditions can help us break the temptation to develop a rigid adherence to precise forms of words and descriptions. That rigidity can too easily lead to not being able to see the forest because we look too intently at the leaves and can result in intolerance and ill-will toward people who think differently.
 

On the contrary, when we know the cause of things as taught in Buddhism, we would understand people more, and never underestimate anyone in any way.  As the Buddha taught, we have all been born all things imaginable, through the innumerable lifetimes we have lived. There is nothing we have not done at one time or another, so that we should always sympathize and try to help others: who knows that our help might not be just what was meant to happen to alleviate their suffering?  or their ignorance?  Even Devadatta, now in hell for trying to murder the Buddha, was predicted to be a Pacceka Buddha one day in the distant future.  From hell to buddhahood, what could be impossible in comparison, with time?

Buddhism, however, does not teach people to insist that others listen to their views.  Even the bhikkhu should not preach unless he is asked to, so that normally even though it is not wrong for a lay person to teach the dhamma, generally it should be to people who express interest.  There is nothing that could force those who are not interested to listen, much less understand: especially since the Dhamma is such an intricate matter.  However, this does not keep Buddhists from understanding other religions, even if they do not believe in them.  Buddhism teaches mostly about one's own nature, but most human nature has the same basic behavior, so that if one understands oneself, one would know that all humans seek happiness and want to escape unhappiness.

We are lucky to have the Buddha's teachings to guide us, and we should share that as we are able.  The rest depends on each individual's accumulations, which none but the Buddha could tell.  Just in case they could understand, if anyone asks, we should try to help them, and gain the highest merit in dana along the way: dhamma dana.

           From: Dan Dalthorp  <dhd5@c...>
            Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 5:00am
            Subject: Re: Dan's view

However, for those of us who do not have a full experiential, understanding (bhanvanamayapanna) of Buddhadhamma and still know bounds to our understanding, it is sometimes helpful to explicitly cultivate tolerance and appreciation of other people (even Christians).
 

Even at the intellectual level of understanding the dhamma we could see that people have different accumulations and that even as about half your life is receiving vipaka (result of past kamma), the other half is performing kamma that will produce results in future lives, therefore anyone could become anything in time and with the right accumulations.  But in order to develop right accumulations we must also be able to tell right from wrong, therefore knowing whether others are right or wrong also.  Only then could we really appreciate the good qualities in anyone, Christians or others, or have tolerance, and better yet have metta for them, and even karuna if possible.  Buddhism never encourages enmity, not even to those who are non Buddhists, no one is ever encouraged to 'kill the infidel' or burn witches or even have inquisitions of any kind, the only one who could change anyone's belief is the person himself.  Buddhism's only weapon is right understanding, logical reasoning and the only thing one is taught to do away with is kilesa.  No holy wars or crusades possible!