Arama or temple in Cambodian language derives from Arama Ropa Rokkha Ropa means a place which is full of trees and natural atmosphere. Trees and forest are very important for Buddhism. Lord Buddha were born in the forest, renunciation to live in the forest, attaining the Dhamma in the forest, and Parinibbana or passing away in the forest. Forest is very important for sustainable development, for biodiversity, for environment and for local residents to survive on the subsistence basis. But after the coming of capitalism, the hunt and thirst for raw material resources has made many corrupted officials and predatory developing countries have used many excuses to extract money from natural resources. This video clip is showcasing the excuse of Cambodian government in their effort to earn extra money by turning forest into land for concession in the political rhetoric of planning industrial development. Local people who have walked along march across the Prey Long forest, which is the last dense resort of Cambodian forest, to express their protest on the non-transparent concession of the Cambodian government. If you are Buddhists, protecting forest and trees mean to protect your life and the Dhamma.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Protecting forest and trees mean to protect your life and the Dhamma
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear friends,
ReplyDeletethere is broadly the wrong understanding that plants are not part of the circle of life. In many English translations of Dhamma and teachings of missionary schools, pants are quoted as sometimes "not beings" sometimes "lower beings" sometimes "beings without feelings".
Everybody living next to nature will know a better.
Buddha did not seek for any discrimination and saw the whole circle of live. Today many Buddhist schools do not accept plants a living beings as there is a resource needed to maintain their missionary actions and destroying even in the name of Buddha.
Not by birth one is a better being, but by his deeds!
some sentences from the Vàseññhasutta
Vaseññha, I will tell you step by step how it happens,
The classification of living things in this and other births.
Look at the grass and trees, although they are not aware,
This and the other have attributes peculiar to their births.
So also insects, like grasshoppers and ants
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the animals small and large
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the serpents with long backs going on their bellies,
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the fish too, who find food in the water.
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the birds flying through the air.
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Although these have various attributes, at birth,
In humans various attributes are not evident at birth.
They are not in the hair, head, ears or eyes
Not in the mouth, nose, lips or eye-lashes
Not in the neck, flanks stomach or back,
Not in the buttocks, chest, pudendum, nor in the sexual intercourse.
Not in the hands, feet, fingers or nails, nor in the knees and calves,
Not in the hue or voice, by which to know their birth.
In the individual bodies of humans, these are not evident,
They are designated by the activities of humans.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by looking after cattle,
Vàseññha, know him as a farmer, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood doing a craft,
Vàseññha, know him as a craftsman, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by trading,
Vàseññha, know him as a merchant, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood working for others,
Vàseññha, know him as a workman, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood out of what is not given,
Vàseññha, know he is a robber, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood serving the king,
Vàseññha, know he is a soldier, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by advising the king,
Vàseññha, know he is the adviser, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood
enjoying the wealth of the village andcountry,
Vàsseññhs, know he is the king, not a brahmin.
In Cambodia Buddhism is most responsible for many nature destruction and even the motivating power of construction and its destruction on the other hand.
The fist what would be made if people like to cut down a forest is to build a "holy" Pagoda deep in the forest and "Bhikkhus" even support such things.
After the building of the Pagoda, they claim for a good street and this game has its shameful strategy.
We always need to look which is our part of such destruction and in abstaining from seeking pleasure by our self we are able to reduce the suffering as well we are able to liberate our self.
If you fail to think on plants as a being remember you destroy the habitats of other beings, taking a tree its like taking ones other land. One would face such things in return. Maybe this makes some understanding cause and effect.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear friends,
ReplyDeletefrom the Vinaya regarding harming plants:
"bhūtagāmapātabyatāya, pācittiyaṃ."
Not to destroy plants. If a bhikkhu destroys or causes someone else to destroy plants that already reached their growing stage or completed their growth, he commits a pācittiya.
However, a bhikkhu who destroys a germ (root, stem, joint, bud or a seed) commits a fault but not a pācittiya. Concerning moss, being neither endowed of a bud, nor of leaves, it is considered as a germ. If, at the same time a root or a bud have grown out, it is already considered as a plant (or tree). By destroying a plant (or a tree), a bhikkhu commits the pācittiya 11. If a bhikkhu accidentally destroys small plants, he does not commit any fault.
Its very important to understand that a real Bhikkhu never forces to build anything, as every building has destruction as forerunner. Bhikkhus calling for building in the name welfare or even for the Dhamma do not transport the message of the Buddha but seek for worldly fame.
Regarding natural resources from the Vinaya:
"yo pana bhikkhu pathaviṃ khaṇeyya vā khaṇāpeyya vā pācittiyaṃ."
Not to dig or cause someone else to dig the earth. If a bhikkhu himself digs or causes someone else to dig for him some "real earth", he commits a pācittiya.
By digging, explosion, scratching, lighting a fire or by any other means whatsoever, a bhikkhu must, in no case at all, modify the earth in any shape whatsoever. Also, he cannot cause the earth to be dug by someone else by directly asking him to do so. However, he is authorised to make him indirectly understand, by telling him for example: "I inform you that there is some earth that needs to be moved."
Being a sample by him self one helps others to understand, is able to argue honestly and reduces all suffering he is able to reduce by him self.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear friends,
ReplyDeleteRegarding burning forest, dirt or anything else from the Vinaya.
"yo pana bhikkhu agilāno visibbanāpekkho jotiṃ samādaheyya vā samādahāpeyya vā aññtra tathārūpappaccayā, pācittiyaṃ."
Not to light a fire, or have a fire lit. Except than for lighting (candle, oil lamp, etc.), cooking or reheating his food, if a bhikkhu who is not ill lights a fire, or has a fire lit for him, he commits a pācittiya.
In keeping the Vinaya, even one does not understand yet, he is a sample for others and can argue for live and harmlessness without the need of being not honest to him self.
Vinaya Bhikkhus are able to help our nature! But effort in your own virtue.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteVinaya, you are preaching is very passive, how do you expect Buddhism to be heard in our modern world?
More than this, your main argument is not authentic to the topic above. The topic is about importance of forest in Buddhism, not about killing commentary of the Vinaya.
Dhammadutta
Dear Dhammadutta,
ReplyDeletefirst of all, the Dhamma is timeless. If one does not see that means that he does not understand suffering, the cause of suffering as well as the way out.
The Vinaya shows good how much importance the Buddha putted in not destroying and harming the nature and forest.
How can Bhikkhus, by not keeping the Vinaya, order trees to be cut, build houses and Pagodas, drive with motorbikes and Cars, using entertainment stuff, being full involved in the destruction of the nature by them self, honestly tell people to stop doing this.
Because they them self have the right to destroy by ordering? Dear friend, that is not possible. If an intelligent company owner would see such a Bhikkhu arguing for not destructing will using the same things as other people, much more being more involved in business and capitalism as the simple people, the forester who are living wide under the standard as the most monks, he would not respect him a little.
His world would be like water praising and wine drinking.
It better to reduce his own part of the destruction of nature, right there where one is. Turning to virtue by one self is the best and most effective Protection for other beings and nature.
I cut wood (be part of business and using money and all other things) that I protect your forest and be a good beings is nonsense.
The people who cut the wood and sell it will build pagodas in return, people will have their beloved money and Bhikkhus will have their fire wood because they like to have food in the pagoda.
In such a way and with such a virtue and so less understanding of the circle destruction one is not able to argue. He can just cry and make opposition so that others will have a benefit from it, acting like every other worldling.
Be a sample, calm people with strong attachments down, help to make Dhamma understandable, encourage people to live a simple live and take precepts. That is all we can do.
If one would be a real Bhikkhu a forest dweller, he would be able to argue with a heavy and true-full voice. But if some city monks with big belly's shoes and cars go start to argue for nature and its protection, they will be simply laugh at and disrespected from those who are interested in cutting the woods.
Villagers also have a bad position as they live from cutting wood and selling it by them self's. The thought of a handful of people really willing to live compassion and abstain from taking what is not given, is a great thought you will not find such people easy. The rest is just meaningless, dishonest, halfhearted and two-faced.
It is a very need to argue for nature but it is also a very need that there are people who do it honest which abstaining from being part of the "developing" (destruction) machine. A Vinaya Bhikkhu a forest monk would be able to do so. In Thailand for example, forest dwelling monks are good known as protector of the forest and they are honored by the people.
Her monks are known as the first pioneers to cut down the forest. Sad, but that is the wheel of life.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteTalking about forest monks, it seems a category that you should distinguish.
The main point here, could you elaborate more on building a temple and using woods for cooking will destroy the forest? How about corporate capitalists who chainsaw the trees, or invest forest for import-export?
Bhikkhu monks are aware of both Vinaya and applicability of changes, changes are constant that require wisdom to handle with it.
Dhammaduta
Dear Dhammaduta,
ReplyDeletein the last 30 year Cambodian monks have been precursor in material development. More then 4,000 pagodas, one approximately $ 200.000,-- have been build out of national forest. Forest to burn bricks, material bought from money from selling wood (as there is no other income and from rice people can not build more then they need).
Before there have been private brick buildings in a village, there was the building of a pagoda. 80% of Bhikkhus are busy with building found raising but not with practicing Buddha Dhamma. They had played a sample role giving material gain more value than the Buddha Dhamma.
You are very right if you say that people are not aware of Vinaya and also not about the timelessness of the Dhamma. Even one is not able to understand that the new material gain is an illusion and leads in any way to suffering and pain any where else, one would be safe of unwholesome deeds by simply keeping the Vinaya.
As long Bhikkhus are them self driving forces in material gains (normal villagers would not have such luxury as most monks have - while normally a monk o not have possessions) they are not able to be a good sample as well as they would have no serious voice.
Laypeople and Monks is an interaction and if the Sangha grows corrupt the laypeople will follow.
If one wishes to build, he orders to destroy and that is the reason why monks don't wish to build, that is a layman business. One more thing is, that in earlier time a building of a Wat was a matter of Samaki for people working by them self's with their own manpower, today it's a matter of business, found racing and prestige.
80% of Monks in Cambodia do not walk for alms, they let laypeople serve the food in the pagoda and even order the meal as well as the firewood. It is normal that monk are good friends of military people who control the cutting and happily donate the wood or people make deals with the pagodas. 1001 Stories but over all there is no understanding of the independent way of the Bhikkhu Sangha.
Laziness,comfort and material attachments are the main reasons for to negate the simple advices from the Buddha.
Right intention is very simple and there is simply no "missionary" no "building in the name of" no "harming for helping"... included.
to be continue...
...continue:
ReplyDeleteIts like always very simple. If one takes for the sake of giving and helping one would do it good if the gain is equal as the lost. Normal the destruction and suffering is bigger as the help. That is why Dana is not a matter of Yogis and less a matter of Bhikkus as one who has given up everything already is not able to share and Virtue actually is much more effective in helping.
That is why it is important to engage people in keeping precepts and nothing else. There is no need to build this or that, make this or that Dana. Its rarely a matter of sharing but a matter of taking to appear as the good man.
Engaged Buddhism means to explain why Buddhist keep precepts, why Monks abstain from worldly business and why taking never is able to help.
Keeping precepts, abstain from taking what is not freely given, being a sample and explain others that is how one is able to help even if others would not see, understand and listening.
It is a pretty illusion to think that many people would understand Dhamma. One needs to focus on his own virtue first doing so one will soon find out how much greed an anger is in one self and if one is able to uproot them one might be a good teacher.
All has its causes and suffering is always caused by one self, nobody else could make you suffer. Is quite simple to understand the wheel of suffering in matters of materialism:
Money is energy, live is energy, working with money means using lives. Every intention has its effects, money is just the way to order it to have it done, but the actor is always one self.
Forest and Buddha Dhamma is always deeply connected. When the forest disappears, Dhamma disappears. On places where people care about nature, Dhamma flourishes.
People attached to sensual pleasure fear forest, dislike thicket and love to use it for pleasant feelings and all what is needed for it.
Dhamma is simple, straight forward and timeless. Cambodian culture was for a long time deeply connected in this wisdom but today there is no more trust in mental development and those calling them self Buddhists are in the first line of misleading the mass.
All we need is to stay mindful! Mindful on our virtue first and after we are also able to start with Bhavana. The way to liberation is a moderate journey, easy and honest, step by step.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteBhavana means development. Three Bhavana refers to mental development, physical development and Dhamma development.
Physical and mental are interrelated. Both has been well applied into Engaged Buddhism. You cannot development mental awareness without having health body and physical energy.
Engaged Buddhism means living with the community, monks must care the community. Forest monks also care for the forest community. No monks can live by themselves and isolate themselves from the community.
Sangha means community.
Dhammaduta
Yes dear Dhammaduta,
ReplyDeleteBhavana means development but if somebody does not understand development and is attach to an "I", "we", "your"... he mistakenly takes development as becoming something, to erect something to build something and to do so he needs to take, to cut, to conquer, produce...
Let me explain you the meaning of developement. "de" is a word that is used to negate (the opposite. "Velope" means to wrap something, involve, to cover something.
Maybe you know an envelope. So it's the opposite. That means that you put away all covers, here specially defilement, enmeshment and unsnare things like they really are.
So physical unsnaring means to look what is really needed to maintain the body and its needs. Engaging in global affair, in market economy, in business is not development, its envelopment.
Attached to sensuality to material gains, to convenience, to a believe that there is a way beside of the eightfold path one mistakes (actually many) development with cover the real nature with something new. That is the opposite of the meaning and the reason for struggle, quarrel, fight and war.
Everybody likes to become somebody to be somebody to maintain his growing, but development is not about growing, its about the remembrance what is actually needed.
So somebody who tells that he speaks about Dhamma and forces people to "development" in the sense of becoming, growing, building forces greed, misses the point of Dhamma, searches for cheap reasoning's why one should be allowed to take, while the other not.
"Not taking what is not freely given", abstaining from stealing and taking (the want to own) is a good orientation to do not mistake development (cultivation, using that what is actually there) with "development" (taking to grow, to become, to force, to win...).
Actually there is no real physical aspect of Bhavana as Sila would be the physical aspect of it.
So once again the three steps of Dhamma practice:
Dana ... letting go, sharing (without taking at the first hand and without a want of any return)
It means that we share all what is actually there, things which are taken to much, with are not really needed or one is able to let go of it. In this way we provide things for others and so they do not need to take additionally.
Sila ... abstaining from harming, killing, taking what is not given, abusing, mental drugs.
In keeping Silas, we abstain from taking and producing additional problems and quarrel in the world.
Bhavana ... means development of the mind and it is always used with other words in connection. For the beginning we can call it "reflection" and a start to investigate in the direction of reality (impermanence, not-self, stress)
to be continue...
...continue
ReplyDeleteHere some kinds of developments in the meaning of Dhamma:
citta-bhāvanā, translated as "development of mind"
mettā-bhāvanā, translated as the "cultivation"or "development of loving-kindness."
paññā-bhāvanā, translated as "development of wisdom"or "development of understanding."
samādhi-bhāvanā, translated as "development of tranquil-wisdom."It means the cultivation (bhavana) of a broad range of skills, covering everything from worldview, to ethics, livelihood and mindfulness.
As for "kāya-bhāvanā" (translated as "development of body." - not material development) means to get knowing his body, to understand it, and to be able to care of it and bring it together with the mind.
Regarding your misunderstanding of isolation. Nobody is independent of others and its not possible to live alone (in a manner of not being dependent on others) but the Buddha clearly engaged his disciples to live in solitude and aside of worldly live to be able to develop real inside and to lead a peaceful life.
Buddha gave a way to lead a life without being more involved as needed in the suffering of worldly life and that is called Dhamma - Vinaya. No cutting, to building, no taking... being not involved in the struggle of life and helping others by abstaining from the want to become something to gain something to be something, to win something.
Being a monks how does not seek for liberation yet but still attached to worldly life means that his paramis are not well developed jet. There is no problem with it, and the Buddha was well aware of, that many monks will not be able to fulfill their tasks completely, that is why he also developed rule for behavior in the community so that he is able to grow.
Once again, one who is not able to help him self, by him self attached to worldly things, still full of anger, greed and delusion is not a help for others.
For many its just an excuse to do not start on solving the problem for one self. Still wanting to be somebody, wanting to be the good man. And the destruction and pain goes on.
Its like a untrained person with a child having a heavy sickness. He will just run around hysterical. "The child is sick, my child is sick!" and maybe start to prepare medicine and even kill the own child. First because of the attachment and secondly out of not being trained to help.
Therefore its good to stay mindful, walking to the doctor (teachings of the Buddha) if we our self have problems and if we have really compassion and not only selfish pity, we start to free our self's to be able to help. For the sake of all beings out of compassion for all beings, the Buddha searched for a way out of suffering and now its up to you to walk the same way and provide it as soon as you have seen it.
_()_
with metta
To understand bhavana (development or cultivation) in the right way is very important. The misunderstanding of Dhamma in the line of religious leader and monks is hardly responsibly for the destruction of Cambodians nature. I understand this kind of blind engagement, is it nothing else that a subtle feeling of guilt (ripping karma). One does good to understand it and let go of his part of destruction. One full of greed by him self will join the fight.
ReplyDeleteThat is why right understanding of Dhamma, of right understanding of development is deeply connected with nature. There is not a single thing which is not taken or made from nature and we should be aware that even if we right here we are destroying nature and cause suffering.
Material "development" is always the cause of suffering, mental development do not hurt anybody. Engaged Buddhism invites others to join mental development and let go of material gains as well as the struggle of it.
Do not lift up wrong ideas.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Right Intention (resolve):
ReplyDelete"And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve."
— SN 45.8
For oneself, for others
"Of two people who practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning — one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others, and one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others — the one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others is to be criticized for that reason, the one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others is, for that reason, to be praised."
— AN 7.64
Practice Dhamma is engaged Buddhism, is putting it into action. Talking about that it would be good if others do that and that is not engaged Buddhism, its like politic and the worldly way have not solved a single problem since live exists.
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteWhat you mean by no "I", "We", "You" is not accurate. Check atta and anatta for its meaning and function again. What you mean by no attachment by involving with non-attachment, is not the Dhamma of Sitti-patthana-sutta.
Three Dhamma should be cultivated by the householders are: Sila, Dana and Bhavana. I think you misinterpret the full meaning of Bhavana in this stage. Householders cannot practice Bhavana in sight of what you tried to reveal.
For Bhikkhu or homeless mendicants, their 3 Sekkha are: Sila, Samadhi and Panna.
By ignoring the worldly compassion, monks or the preachers might loss its sight at the first step. If you have no first step, you can not reach Nibbana.
Dhammaduta
Dear Dhammaduta,
ReplyDeletefirst of all it is nonsense that a layman is not able to gain insight. There have been plenty of people at Buddhas time who have not been Bhikkhus but attained highest knowledge. Of cause its is more difficult as the livelihood could be not easy leaded so that one does not harm any more and do not take anymore.
It's an act of compassion that one leaves house life, turns to virtue and takes the Vinaya serious. That is why such people are called "Preah Karuna" and that has nothing to do with Santa Claus who brings presents and also nothing to do with somebody who conjure food.
Out of this compassionate act of being no more involved in taking and harming one is worthy for alms and the for requites.
Regarding the three pillows of practice for a layman and for a Bhikkhu is what I have told you all the time. As soon as somebody has joined the Bhikkhu Sangha or as soon one leaves the house live, there is no more need for Dana (as one do not have anything to share accept his time which should be balanced with the practice.)
Even today there are many who join the Bhikkhu Sangha still attached to worldly things and not for the welfare of all beings and one self, its generally a act of compassion that one stops taking what is not given and to cause harm.
Its not good if monks tell people lies and do not explain what Dhamma is about and just look to entertain there devoted donators.
If you really ask serious what is meant by atta and anatta and not being attached or do not grasp worldly things, then we need to begin by the very roots and the first noble truth. I don't think that this is needed, maybe you take more time and read things more exactly and and reflect them with your Dhamma heart and not with your intellect as the intellect would be not able to understand things rightly.
to be continue...
...continue:
ReplyDeleteRegarding layman and Bhikkhus, I think its needed to explain a little more as well to point out what engaged Buddhism means.
Who is a lay person?
Finally, among the people who adhere to the dhamma, all those who are not bhikkhus, or sāmaṇeras, or nuns are laity. We can divide lay people into three categories:
* There are some laity who, although approving Buddha's word, only dedicate their life a little, or not at all, to the practice of the dhamma. They like to claim that they are Buddhists, but do little else than run after pleasures and engage in business activities; if they observe one or two precepts, it is only because it is easy for them; they don't want to dedicate any effort to the rest. Even though they claim to be inclined to meditation, they convince themselves that they never have any time to practice it.
* There are also lay people who try to dedicate more time and effort to follow a way suitable to the development of knowledge (of reality). They more or less observe the five precepts (sometimes the eight), they like everything that concerns the dhamma aesthetically (monuments, statues, ceremonies), they readily spend time reciting texts dealing with Buddha's teaching, watching the quality of their actions, regularly making donations, attending meditation sessions, and sometimes, taking ordination for a short period.
* Finally, there are laity who, within their possibilities, try their best to progress quickly and effectively on the path to the cessation of suffering. These ones very regularly train in being generous, in being vigilant and in applying full mindfulness. Their observance of the five precepts, if not eight, is scrupulous. Some of them even intend to lead a monastic life permanently.
Although they all point to a sole aim, the objectives of Buddha's teaching are very diverse. They consist, among others, in:
-> Inducing the first category of laity to improve their way of life so as to become laity of the second category.
-> Encouraging the laity of the second category to maintain the positive aspects of their way of life and inciting them to improve on this so as to become laity of the third category.
-> Encouraging the laity of the third category to maintain the positive aspects of their way of life and suggesting them the experience of complete renunciation (monastic life).
_()_
with metta
Hanzze
Dear Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteI don't get the explanation on Atta and Anatta yet.
Thanks
Dhammaduta
Dear Dhammaduta,
ReplyDeletepeople struggle and fight for something that does not exist and that is all what the Dhamma is about. The believe in a "soul" a "person" a "being" an "I" a "you" as well as all the possessions which are believed out of it, is the cause of grasping and this is the cause of suffering. So let me bring up the explaining of not-self:
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
ReplyDeleteI have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.
_()_
with metta
Dear Hanzze;
ReplyDeleteIt seems your description is contradictory to what you mentioned previously.
Peace,
Dhammaduta
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeletewhat seems different for you? My English is not the best so it could be easily at this is the reason.
Maybe you like to point out what you see contradictory.
_()_
with metta
Dear friends,
ReplyDeleteeven the most scholar Buddhist mention plants sometimes even not as being, I am very happy that there are some who work on "intellectual" researches on plants in Buddhism.
This study might be from interest:
Plants in Early Buddhism the Far Eastern Idea of the Buddha Nature of Grasses and Trees
_()_
with metta
Hanzze