Do you? (Buddhism, scriptures, recall, bible, verse)

[Somkid]

I was reading The Dharma in my office this morning as I do every morning until something strikes me that I can think on for the day, before I actually do any work and I came upon this and though back to my life in the USA rushed hurried and not very mindful, eating on the run going from here to there dazed and confused.

"If people knew, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they would not eat a meal without having shared it, nor would they allow the stain of meanness to obsess them and take root in their minds.

Even if it were their last mouthful, they would not eat a meal without having shared it, if if there were someone to share it with.

But because people do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given, and the stain of meanness obsesses them and takes root in their minds.

--Itivuttaka 26

I thought about this a lot so far today and it really makes a lot of sense to me. Since I moved to Thailand I can't recall having a meal alone, with out friends, family or colleagues it is just the way of things here. When I lived in the states I always ate alone and I was bitter and mean towards those who would interrupt, eating was simply for sustenance not for sharing.

What do you think?

[Halcyon]

Is that from the Dhammapada?

I think the teaching is about selfishness, if you aren't willing to share your food then clearly you have attachment issues with regard to the "this is mine, that is yours" illusion of material thought.

[mball1297]

I think it makes a lot of sense, and I think it can be applied to many other things, too.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Is that from the Dhammapada?

It's from the Itivuttaka

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I think the teaching is about selfishness, if you aren't willing to share your food then clearly you have attachment issues with regard to the "this is mine, that is yours" illusion of material thought.

I think it's about connectedness. U.S. culture tends to emphasize isolation and self-reliance over community and mutual dependency.

[Somkid]

Itivuttaka means "as it was said" in Pali. The Itivuttaka is a Buddhist scripture, from the Pali Canon, it is included in the Sutta Pitaka's Khuddaka Nikaya and is comprised 112 short teachings ascribed in the text to the Buddha, each consisting of a prose portion followed by a verse portion. The Itivuttaka is consider to be one of the earliest of all Buddhist scriptures. I read a few pages of "A Buddhist Bible" every morning, it has all the texts from every sect of Buddhism including Taoism. I recently heard that there was another book published that was only from the Zen sources but in any event this book has them all. I also found a link to "A Buddhist Bible" on line I haven't really had a lot of time to check it out to see if it is complete or not but here it is if you are interested.

A Buddhist Bible Index

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Somkid

I read a few pages of "A Buddhist Bible" every morning, it has all the texts from every sect of Buddhism including Taoism.

Taoism is NOT a sect of Buddhism. It is indigenous to China, just as Confucianism is. Zen Buddhism - or Ch'an Buddhism as it is called in Chinese - is the result of the merging of Taoist influences with Buddhism when it arrived in China. That is why the Tao te Ching is in the "Buddhist Bible." And like all bibles, the contents reflect both the interests and biases of the people who assembled it.

[Somkid]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Taoism is NOT a sect of Buddhism. It is indigenous to China, just as Confucianism is. Zen Buddhism - or Ch'an Buddhism as it is called in Chinese - is the result of the merging of Taoist influences with Buddhism when it arrived in China. That is why the Tao te Ching is in the "Buddhist Bible." And like all bibles, the contents reflect both the interests and biases of the people who assembled it.

Yes, I know I teach the subject and I am a Ch'an Buddhist. Confucianism is a social philosophy and has nothing to do with Buddhism at all. The Tao goes nicely with Buddhism and reflects many principals of non-self and the nature of things when used in the intended manner or mixed with Buddhist thought however; Taoism is misguided as a religion and was never intended to be anything other than a philosophy which is what annoyed Lao Tsu so much and the reason he left China.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Somkid

Yes, I know I teach the subject and I am a Ch'an Buddhist.

So why did you say otherwise? There are people who don't know these things who read these forums for instruction. Your statement would have been misleading.

Originally Posted by Somkid

Confucianism is a social philosophy and has nothing to do with Buddhism at all. The Tao goes nicely with Buddhism and reflects many principals of non-self and the nature of things when used in the intended manner or mixed with Buddhist thought however; Taoism is misguided as a religion and was never intended to be anything other than a philosophy which is what annoyed Lao Tsu so much and the reason he left China.

Confucianism and Taoism are two sides of the same coin. They both describe the Way; they just see it differently - Confucius focusing on regulating the outward acts and Lao Tse focusing on inward transformation. Exoteric and esoteric.

And the distinction between "religion" and "philosophy" is a Western distinction.