Religion and works

[LoTrobador]

SugaCubez,

Thank you very much for your posts and for the links! I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, I haven't had time to do so properly.

You write about the importance of the context for understanding Buddhism - and I couldn't agree more. Those teachings have been formulated in a completely different environment (both cultural and natural) more than two millenia ago, in a language entirely different from the Germanic and/or Latin languages of the West, even more significantly - based on categories of thought different than those of the post-Hegelian Western culture informed by the Greek philosophy, Christianity and post-modernism, and by people who themselves were using even more different categories and modes of thinking.

It all created a vast, organic system of correspondences between various categories, terms, teachings and their expressions; and while I'm not saying praticular Buddhist teachings cannot be presented in a succinct, comprehensive way, that they are confined to a particular cultural expression or that they might lack universal appeal, to try to take those elements completely out of their context might simply make it nearly impossible to understand them. And I like that paleontological simile.

I think the way you write about the reality of Dukkha is very existential, and at the same time very simple (as in Japanese aesthetical categories of kanso or shizen). "Life is suffering" in the sense that in life there simply are very concrete, particular causes, that effect in one's concrete feeling of Dukkha - not an abstract, but a very concrete experience, different for different people. I think such approach might appeal even to the most materialistic, scientifically-minded particularist, vehemently opposed not only to religion, but to all and every thought that bears even a slightest resemblance to what he might deem as a "vain metaphysical speculation".

As for Buddhism being seen as pessimistic, I think one reason behind that might be the perceived association between Schopenhauer's philosophy and Buddhist reflection; his philosophy tends to be seen as pessimistic and it has been postulated that it bears resemblance to Buddhist thought, or even that it's been influenced by it. Schopenhauer himself stated that he arrived to his conclusions without such influence, but when he learned of Buddhism he did see similarities - and such connection might oscillate somewhere on the very peripheral areas of preconscious mind, but still influence the reception of Buddhism in the Western world.

Another very important subject you discuss here (and also in a different thread) is how the teachings of Buddha Dhamma are perceived fundamentally differently in the East and the West: while in the latter there are discussions on whether and/or to what extent Buddhism (or particular traditions within it) is a religion, in the former the very categories of religion and '-isms' simply don't apply.

There are teachings and practices, but there's no clear-cut boundary of what is Buddhist and what's not - as there's no "Buddhism" in the first place (similarly, the Ancient Greeks also did not have a word for "religion"). This is a fundamental cognitive difference, which might render it very hard both to understand Buddha Dhamma (by a Westerner) and to present/explain it (to a Westerner).

Also, I think the Western thought with respect to religion is largely influenced by theistic prophetic traditions of Judaeo-Christianity and Islam; so a Westerner, when encountering Buddhism and perceiving it as a religion, might naturally, even subconsciously, try to apply categories from those traditions to Siddhattha Gotama and his teachings - while such categories might not even be applicable.

And I'm afraid that - writing "I probably know as much about Buddhism as you do" - you hugely overestimated my knowledge of Buddhism, but I hope I'll be albe to use the links you've provided to the benefit of my knowledge and understanding of Buddha Dhamma.

Once again, thank you very much!

 

[SugaCubez352]

Hi LoTrobrador,

We definitely are on the same page, and the same wavelength. Althoe you do know more then me. I don't know anything about Hegel or Schropenhauer or Kanzo or Shizen But I have heard of the "Hegelian Dialectics." I'm very "boxed in" inside the Theravadin memeplex. The only other kind of "Buddhism" that I am familiar with, and like very much is the late Allen Watts stuff. I think Mr. Watts was a brilliant person. I think besides my own way of understanding Buddhism, and my elders, Allen Watts would be my third most influential source of Insight in regards to Buddhism.

I think Allen Watts is the perfect example of the Forrest Doctrine in expression. He took what he learned and used it to extract insight and wisdom from the world of phenomena around him.

From my perspective, when I think of Buddhism and the West, I think of people admiring a tree. So they like this tree they admire and want to take it home with them, and they cut it down forgetting the roots. Buddhism can be apprehended anywhere - it's not native to China, Japan, or Indochina anyway - but Buddhism's ancestral roots is an aspect of Buddhism.

I think to me Buddhism is existential in essence because of how I "became" a Buddhist. I was just born into it. My family is a mix of Khmer/Thai/Chinese. So after a thousand years or so of Buddhism being in my family's country, that Buddhism becomes the culture itself, and is embedded into our language and costumes.

So Buddhism to me was never a set of doctrine or a text book course. It's a way of life. It's in how we interact and live with and for each other. Its everybody I know. It's wedding ceremonies and cultural holidays.

And Thai and Khmer Theravada Buddhism makes things more Life oriented because of this thing sometimes called "The Forest Doctrine," where our monks will go on a retreat into the forest to practice Vipassana old school style and practice samadhi to "read" the forest like Buddha did.

You are right, Buddhism in the West is often interpreted as a religion, like the revealed religions of Christianity and Islam. I don't mind it being seen as such, and according to several definitions it is a "religion," I guess. But there is no central god to be worshiped. The monks and nuns aren't priests or religious authorities (at least not in Theravada). There is no real doctrine. This sounds crazy that I should say Buddhism has no doctrine, but a Way of Life... a way of doing things is not a doctrine or dogma you read. I never heard anyone teach me Buddhism growing up. Dhamma isn't a belief, idea, ideology you carry in your head or a label you wear. It's what you do and how you Live Life. It's in your relationships with others, in how you treat and speak to them, what you do for them. It's in what you do for yourself... bettering yourself... Taming your Mind, controlling your emotions... learning to be Master of your own Mind and Life; and striving for Sambudhi.

Having it be understood as a religion does have its down side. One end up believing that one has to read some Buddhist bible, go to some Buddhist church, follow Buddha's teachings to the letter, go out and practice ahimsa on bugs and people for good karma But none of this has anything to do with Dhamma Buddha.

The other reason why my Buddhism feels existential is because in our culture, Sasana Pribhut is fundamentally based on the Three Jewels: Buddham (saranam gacchami); Dhamman (saranam gacchami); and Sangam (saranam gacchami). You can't have Buddhism in our culture without those three being together. Following the footsteps of the Buddha isn't enough. Studying Dhamma isn't enough. You also need Sangha... Community.

In Theravada, Sangha actually refers to two things: Bhikkhu-Sangha and Ariya-Sangha. Bhikkhu Sangha is the Order of monks and nuns. Ariya Sangha refers to every man and woman who follows Buddha and Dhamma and applies Dhamma in their lives.

So studying teachings from Dhamma and learning it from monks and nuns is great, but a total dependence on doctrine and the words of others causes the Mind to lose itself in those words and doctrines. Thus you are not grounded anymore.

Ariya Sangha keeps you grounded in the Here and Now. In context to me and my culture Ariya Sangha is literally my whole family, every one of my relatives, and all of our associates and companions in Life. And because they are people I am intimately associated with in this Sangha gives me the opportunity to apply Dhamma in action: To relieve the Dukkha of those people who love and care for me, in return for the same. And the business of relieving there unpleasant experiences in Life is a 24 hour job... especially with a huge family.

Sangha is missing in Western Buddhism. More importantly what is missing is the "spirit" and empathy that makes a community of people who care for each other possible. Western culture is too "Darwinian." There is too much fighting and struggling just to barely stay alive. There is no more sense of community in America here. Its every person for themselves. Independence and self reliance is glorified as the Ne Plus Ultra of growing up American. Nobody trust each other anymore. We don't even know our neighbor's names.

This causes us (our Minds) to lose itself in "illusions" or distractions that diverts our Minds from what is real: television, the internet, book based doctrine, religions... we segregate ourselves from everybody and we surround ourselves with distractions that distracts us from Life and everybody. And all this struggle to just stay alive, the mental, psychological, and emotional isolationism, and the ungroundedness causes Stress (Dukkha) in our lives. And as we are now becoming aware, Stress kills.

So all of this put together - the Living Culture, the Forest Doctrine, and Sangha - keeps my Mind grounded on Life. As I "read" Life and Nature, and am immersed in Sangha, how I experience Dhamma may become existential in quality... that is more "alive" rather than "clinical"

The Western understanding of "karma" is something I also dislike mostly because of the New Age movement making it into some mystical or supernatural "thing." I like the Chinese and Japanese rendition of karma where they refer to it as "Cause and Fruit." But I'll save this for a different thread

Stay grounded my friend.

Buddham pujemi. Dhamman pujemi. Sangham pujemi. (pujemi - I bow to).

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes I agree with the way people view Buddhism in the west, like admiring a tree. They do the same with Mahayana Buddhism. They don't really know how Mahayana is applied in say- China, or Taiwan.

 

[SugaCubez352]

I know what you mean Yosef. My Grand parents are Chinese Buddhists One of my Grandfather's brothers was a Chinese's Buddhist monk even. So in our family because of the Chinese side, we have certain "unorthodox" practices (to Theravada) such as burning ghost money for our ancestors. Have you ever heard of ghost money? Sometimes its called Hell Money too. I also have a jade necklace of Gung Im (Kuan Yin in Thai/ and Khmer). My favorite Budhisatta/Budhisattva is the one we call Prih Ganchai which is what we call the fat laughing Buddha. Unfortunately, I don't believe they are gods. A Budhisatta in our language and Culture does not mean a god. It is two words put together: Budhi meaning "Wise/Awake" and Satta. In Khmer Satta is pronounced as "Satt," and means an "animal," or "creature." In Pali is means a Creature or Being. So the two words just means a Wise of Awakened Being. In Khmer the word Sattmanuss (from the Pali satta-Manussa) means a Human Being. So those would be the states of development of Consciousness. We being as primitive Sattas... evolve over time into Sattmanuss... and those who work on self evolution (for evolution is Willed) becomes a Budhisatta.

To expand on a certain topic. To me Buddhism is indeed very simple, which may seem to be the opposite of the complex pile of 24,000 pages of the Tipitikas. It would at first seem that such a size Canon would produce a person mired in complexity. But this is not really the case.

Sometimes in Life the most simplest things... wordless experiences... requires the most words to convey.

Like the experience of a kiss or the experience of falling in love. We've all wordlessly experienced these things, but if I were to ask you to write in words how it all happened, how it is all done, and to explain the feelings, and benefits, so that people on the other side of the world could duplicate such experiences, how many pages and volumes would it take?

Or something wordless that we take for granted everyday like driving a car or riding a bike. These things need no words to teach. Once you have experienced it once or twice, you wordlessly know how it is done. But if I were to try and put that wordless knowing into words so that a person who has never ridden a bike or driven a car before would know the Methodology of doing it right and safely... how many pages and volumes would that take?

There are so many words and books to read and study in Buddhism, but the End Result is a wordless knowing... a wordless becoming. When things becomes silent and simple, then you know you are on the right path. Like a leaf carried on a stream that effortlessly flows down hill.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes I know what ghost money is. As for the fat Bodhisattva everyone thinks is Gautama Buddha, he is also called Hotei. There is a lot of ancestor veneration in Mahayana. There is in my other path, Kemetic Orthodoxy as well. Yes it is true some of the so-called gods in Mahayana are not gods, but then again, some are. King Yama is certainly a god, as is the five wrathful deities, and there is the idea among some Japanese Buddhists that the Bodhisattva Jizo is actually another half of the god of the underworld. Quan Yin has certainly become a deity, the divine feminine that is. Chinese Buddhists also believe there was a male Quan Yin who was a monk, but the female Quan Yin is something akin to a goddess. Then you have the belief in elementals of nature such as Asuras. The Asuras are a good example, probably an influence of Hinduism. Then you have Kundali and the five wisdom kings. There are many deities in Mahayana as well. In Pure Land Buddhism, which is my school, the Pure Land is the home of both Bodhisattvas and gods.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes I know what ghost money is. As for the fat Bodhisattva everyone thinks is Gautama Buddha, he is also called Hotei. There is a lot of ancestor veneration in Mahayana. There is in my other path, Kemetic Orthodoxy as well. Yes it is true some of the so-called gods in Mahayana are not gods, but then again, some are. King Yama is certainly a god, as is the five wrathful deities, and there is the idea among some Japanese Buddhists that the Bodhisattva Jizo is actually another half of the god of the underworld. Quan Yin has certainly become a deity, the divine feminine that is. Chinese Buddhists also believe there was a male Quan Yin who was a monk, but the female Quan Yin is something akin to a goddess. Then you have the belief in elementals of nature such as Asuras. The Asuras are a good example, probably an influence of Hinduism. Then you have Kundali and the five wisdom kings. There are many deities in Mahayana as well. In Pure Land Buddhism, which is my school, the Pure Land is the home of both Bodhisattvas and gods.

Yet you see these Buddhist Gods as the same as Anubis, Ra, hathor, Bastet etc?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yet you see these Buddhist Gods as the same as Anubis, Ra, hathor, Bastet etc?

Some of them are, and some of them are not. Bodhisattvas are not gods. But those we call gods are the same, yes.

 

[SugaCubez352]

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha when he refers to himself before he was Awakened, or when he spoke about one of his previous lives he would refer to himself as a "Budhisatta." In this Canonical use of the term, a Budhisatta in Theravada is an Awake person on his/her way to becoming a Buddha, but one who is not a full Buddha - fully Awakened like Prihbhut Gautama. It is interesting to note that in the Pali Canon (Tipitikas) the only other being described to be a full Buddha is Meitreya, the future Buddha.

Theravada Buddhism seems very, very conservative with bestowing the term "Budhisatta" to people or beings. The Northern Buddhists (Mahayana) seem more liberal with the term.

I think as far as Mahayana liberalism goes, they seem to use the same "tactics" as the Catholic church does. Most often in Catholicism "Saints" that are venerated were usually gods of indigenous peoples. These indigenous gods and/or ancestors would be made into catholic Saints so as to encourage the indigenous people to be Catholics (by proxy sometimes).

I see this also happening with Mahayana Buddhism in China, where things like Kuan Yin who originally was the Taoist (Taoism being China's indigenous religion) Goddess of the West, was made into a "Budhisatta."

Things like King Yama, and all the other Devattas that populate the higher realms of the Bhavachakka in Theravada Buddhism are not gods. The word "Devatta" doesn't mean a god/deity in this context (as the word god/deity means in English and Latin based languages).

In everyday speech in Khmer and Thai a Devatta just means an ordinary Guardian Spirit of some kind. For example forests or old temples can have a devatta spirit watching over it.

The word "Devatta" comes from two words put together: Dev/Deb and Atma/Atta. Dev or Deb (pronounced "Tip" in Khmer) means an ordinary illumination or light of some kind or something shining. As in the light reflected in your eyes by a mirror, or the halo of a candle flame... and so Dep is also used to describe the halo of light that surrounds certain Being's heads. Atma or "Atta" has several meanings. It means "Self," "Soul," "spirit," "entity." So when you put Devatta together you don't have a god or deity that should be worshiped, you just have a "Being of Light" which is all it means.

In Bhavachakka, there are 3 "evolutionary" classes of Beings (Sattas). There are the Sattas (animals/creatures) that populate the Apayabhumi and our Kamasugatibhumi. Then there are the Manussa that populate the 7 planes of the kamasugati. Manussa comes from the root "MAN" meaning "To Think," or "Mind," and is the word for a "Human." Satta Manussa would thus mean a Human Being. Devattas or Satta Devattas populate the last two sections of the Bhavachakka.

Satta ---> Manussa --->Devatta are all the same Attas/Atman in different "gradations." All Attas according to Karma and their level of mental clarity can become any of these three at any time according to Samsara. A "Budhisatta" in this context would be a special Being/Atta - manussa or devatta - who has evolved itSelf to the point where they are on their way to leaving Bhavachakka and thus Samsara, to the state of being beyond.

Thus, a Manussa who cultivates samadhi during its mortal life, will be reborn in the higher planes of Bhavachakka and be a high form of atta - a Being of Light (devatta) as opposed to just a Thinking Creature. If the Manussa spends its time attached to basal "animalistic" qualities and spends its life making others miserable it will be reborn in the apaya as a Satta. But a Satta who cultivates Thinking will be reborn a Manussa, and it can develop into a Devatta.

So in Theravada devattas aren't gods or deities. They are just the same things animals and we humans are in a high modality of consciousness, which we can or will become if we cultivate the right state of Mind. There is no sense in worshiping these devattas, because they, like we are, are stuck inside Bhavachakka in the cycle of Samsara and they are, as we are, trying to get out.

I find it curious that people would interpret devattas as gods and then worship them. The word devatta is at times misinterpreted into English as "gods," or "demigods," but this is because the English language lacks a more better word.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well thanks for teaching me some things about Theravada, Suga. I never have known about Theravada too much. Yes we in Mahayana use the term Bodhisattva almost like a saint. That is actually the goal of a layperson in Mahayana if they cannot attain enlightment, is to become a Bodhisattva.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The way we use Bodhisattva is different. We believe that if a person lives their life loving and caring for all things, they could choose to become a Bodhisattva eternally, which we do use the term differently it seems. Almost like a Catholic saint, like you said.

 

[LoTrobador]

Hi SugaCubez,

I'm very glad we understand each other very well. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with you saying I know more, I think we simply have different areas of interest. And yes, I think Hegel is quite famous for his dialectic (though I've seen it being criticised as proposing you can somehow have a valid synthesis of a true statement and a contradictory, false proposition), and as for kanso and shizen - they're simply about simplicity and naturalness, respectively.

Aw kohn for writing about your perspectives on Buddhism, I find them most enlightening. Well, as you've said - you have a life-long experience of living Theravadin practice (not only of adhering to certain beliefs), you are immersed in this culture, and have members of your family who are Bhikkus and Bhikkunis, and I think that can be an invaluable source of profound insight and inspiration. I believe you've also mentioned elswhere that your great-grandfather was the Samdeh Preah of the Thai Sangha in 1980s - were you referring to His Holiness Somdet Phra Ariyavangsagatayana Somdet Phra Sangharaja?

I myself am not very familiar with the writings of Alan Watts, nor with the Forrest Tree Tradition, unfortunately, though I did read some writings of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. For a very long time the primary (and almost the only) focus of my Buddhist studies was Zen as taught and practiced from a Japanese perspective, and Christian mysticism in dialogue with Zen - so I'm still learning about other traditions of Buddha Dhamma and how they are perceived, embraced and expressed by people from other cultures.

I like that tree simile too - one can hardly take one branch and infer from it to the whole of the tree; or to cut it off and keep it alive isolated; now, one can grow a plant from a cutting, but not every plant in any soil and environment.

As for thinking about Buddhism in Christian categories, I think it simply might be that sometimes a Westerner might naturally, unconsciously try to find Buddhist Bible, Buddhist church (as you've phrased it), Buddhist prophets, to learn of Buddhist God and Buddhist Messianic figure. And the question of similarities between Christianity and Buddhism reminds me of Robert M. Prince's If You Dislike Christianity, You'll Hate Buddhism!.

As for what you write about Sangha - how different is it form Sartre's/Garcin's "L'enfer, c'est les autres"! And I think it's Sangha where the Western concept of religion might enter the picture - as religio is what religat, binds people, and Sangha is what binds followers of Buddha Dhamma together. Also, even if there are no priests (in Judaeo-Christian sense) in Buddhism, Bhikku-Sangha might be seen as somehow set apart from the world and from the Ariya-Sangha - and I think Hebrew kodesh and Greek hagios can be translated both as holy, and also as set apart, consecrated. In other words, as long as teachings and pracitces are a matter of personal, individual engagement, they still might be seen as philosophy or spirituality, but when permanent social structures - such as monastic orders - arise, one might start to perceive such phenomenon as religious in nature.

I too think Western culture is very much (and increasingly) individualistic, and it actually can be a very recent phenomenon; I believe it was Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who - in a past couple of years - said something to the effect that we build walls around ourselves, that we turn our homes into fortresses, and I've heard people saying they used to keep their doors unlocked for night, but they would be afraid to do so today. On the other hand, I think such feelings of isolation, even alienation, of a constant demand for a fast and successful living (reminds me of Spencer's survival of the fittest) might be what at one point turns people to spirituality and religion - to Wicca with its connection to the Nature, to Mormonism with its strong community, to New Age with its Cosmic Awareness and one's place in the Universe.

And concerning how hard it might be to write about Enlightenment and how many volumes have been written about it, that's what has kindled my interest in Zen - looking beyond the words, beyond the lines, in order to experience That, which might be too different both from everyday experience and from even most sophisticated abstract reasoning to be described.

Best wishes, my Friend.

(And I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly or fully, I'm ill and have a stack of painkillers right next to me. )

 

[SugaCubez352]

Hi Lo,

Your welcome or “saddhu” as they say I see you know Khmer? How did you become familiar with Khmer? Not many people even know the language exists There is a “karmic” meaning behind the phrase “aw kuhn.” Besides meaning thank you as you already know. “Aw(s)” means “all gone,” or when something is depleted or out. “Kuhn” is a word which describes a karmic debt owed to someone. Your/our mothers is said to have the most Kuhn meaning that we owe the most kuhn to our own mothers for going thru those 9 months of dukkha to give birth to us. So when you/we say aw kuhn, we are actually “esoterically” saying something like: “I absolve you of any karmic debt you owe me.” It is believed that karmic debt keeps you earth bound. So forgiving someone of their karmic debt helps them find liberation faster.

Unfortunately I don’t know my great grandfather’s name. In our culture and social class, it’s considered vulgar and barbaric to know, or use names. We are even forbidden to use personal pronouns in the register of Khmer my family speaks. This also has to do with Sangha, or the bonds of Sangha. To explain, we use words that describe what we are to who we speak to. Like if I wanted to ask my mom to take me somewhere, in our register, I’d have to say: “Can (the) mother take (the) daughter somewhere, please?” This reinforces the relation and connection between two people in that it forces them to see and recognize a relationship.

On the other hand, if I were to ask my mom: “Can YOU take ME somewhere please?” This is considered highly offensive, and vulgar; because it imply that there is no bond or connection between the two people speaking. One is a “you,” and one is a “me.” Calling your mom or any elder a “you” is equally as offensive and vulgar as using a cuss word in my register of Khmer. When you are born and raised in such an environment where your mind is saturated in words that expresses closeness, relation, and intimacy, it actually hurts emotionally when say, your mom or grandmother is mad at you and she uses the word “you” instead of using the usual “daughter” or “grand daughter.”

Using names is also offensive, because names do not express kinship… relationship… bond. My mom tells me that calling people by their name is the same as cussing at them or calling them a cuss word. I have 10 aunts and uncles, and I don’t know any of their names still. Except one. My favorite aunt is the youngest who I used to live with. She used to go to college and all of her friends call her by her name Jiwan – which we render as “G1.” So I got used to calling her G1 too. I accidentally called her by her name at my grandma’s house during a get together, and the whole room just went quiet, and you can hear the old ladies (grandma and her sisters and cousins) gasp in horror clutching their hearts and saying things like: “Oh dear god,” and “She speaks like the blood of barbaric peasants” and “Somebody teach that granddaughter some manners!”

It’s hard to explain, but when you are born, raised, and conditions in such a mental environment where you never hear names and you only use familial titles as pronouns but it never really crosses your mind as a child that people have names. I only learned my mom and dad had names when I was around 6 or 7, after I learned to read. I was allowed to go outside to check the mail, and I’d see these names of people on it. I once ask my mom when I gave her the mail: “Who is this?”

So I don’t know my great grandfather’s name. I know he came to visit my grandmother once when I was about 7. He was 90 something at the time, but was still strong enough to walk fine. Unfortunately I was too young to care or appreciate what he was at the time. My grandmother just told me to greet him properly and told me he was some Samdech Preah. He asked my grand mother whose daughter I was, and my grandmother said her second oldest. So he said to me tapping on his heart: “Atma Dtudt,” which means ‘I am (your) Great grand father.’

He got married when he was young and had children. Then he had a dream one night where he saw the Buddha had come to him and said that he can stay in Cambodia as he is and eventually be rich, or if he goes to Thailand and becomes a monk, the Buddha will make him the king of all his monks in Thailand. So he said (when he was telling my mom and her siblings, me and my cousins) he asked his wife for permission to be a monk and to forgive him for putting her through any pain and heartache he may cause. His wife (our great grandma) said for him to go ahead and be a monk. So he went to Thailand as a young man and joined the Thai Bikkhu Sangha and became a monk. And after many decades he became the Samdech Preah Sangh, just like his dream had said.

The other thing that makes it hard to know his name for me, is that like a Pope or a King, when you become a Samdech Sangh they give you a new public name, which everyone in the country knows you by. I see his picture in every Thai restaurant we got to on the altar. He past away in the late 1990’s after his visit. My grandma and her sisters and cousins all went en mass to his funeral.

It’s amazing because when you look at the “bigger picture” it seems almost “pre-planned” somehow. When my great grand father became a monk he lived in Thailand. Then the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in the 70’s. My parents said the Khmer Rouge killed every monk in the country. I read somewhere the before the revolution there were around 40,000 monks and after the revolution only 4 were alive. So the Bhikkhu Sangha in Cambodia was annihilated. But my great grandfather and his associates planted their Sangha in Cambodia after the revolution to rekindle Dhamma.

Religat… to bind together! I’ve often wonder if the word came from some like Re-Ligi as in to Re-Link people together with something. But this is just my amateur etymology. I would agree, I think this is where Buddhism and Christianity may be essentially the same. It’s the most important part. The “Church” as I seem to have come to understand it is the Body of Christ collectively. This reminds me of when Christ said something like “Where there are two or more of you, there I am also,” and also “Love one another, as I have loved you,” and “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (James 1:27).”

It’s unfortunate that this simple praxis has been lost in modern Christianity. As you say, things in the West are very individualistic these days. One can say that the Body of Christ is broken up into separate parts. I go to Mormon wards often because I have friends in the LDS Church. To me, it seems as though Mormons still have a sense of communitarian values that most other’s denominations lack today. I think that being social organisms, community is an aspect of being human. Sadly in today’s world, many don’t even have the desire to experience this most fundamental facet of our humanness.

My mom used to tell me that the old days when she was a little girl she’d wake up in the early morning to make food for the monks. The monks would come walking into town with their empty bowls staring at their toes and she would give each of them a portion of what she made.

Even though the Bikkhus are sacred and separated (as you pointed out) from “normal” people, there is yet a symbiosis that is alive in such countries between the Bhikkhu Sangha and the Ariya Sangha. Although the monks have separated themselves from the world to pursue enlightenment and liberation, they still need food. So the Ariya sangha provided the Bhikkhus with mortal sustenance and in exchange the Bhikkhus provided the Ariya sangha with Spiritual, and Mental sustenance. Each caring for the other in a specific way according to need.

There is something simple and beautiful in that symbiosis I see… which is hard to find in Buddhism in the West. But then again, its becoming increasingly harder to find a genuine Bhikkhu these days. I have encountered many who break several of the 227 rules a Bhikkhu is to follow.

I was at a Wat with my family once speaking to monks. My mom had this look of anger on her face and she called me away from them. I asked her what was wrong, and she said that a Bhikkhu can only look at a girl’s toes or the ground when speaking to a girl.

Or several times I got to this one Vietnamese mall in Garden Grove friends. We often see a strange American bhikkhu standing outside the entrance of the mall in full orange robe and barefooted. He has his eyes closed and head bowed, and he hold his begging bowl. I saw people putting money into his bowl, so me and my friends just do the same (for good karma). I brought my mom to see him, since I thought it was weird to see an American bhikkhu so dedicated to begging that’s he’d stand in the hot sun all day in silent reverence. I said to my mom “Look, there he is, the monk, go give him some money for good luck,” and my mom got offended and said “That’s not a real monk. Real monks are forbidden to handle money or beg for money!”

 

[anilbharti]

Hi..
Thanks for sharing this topic.

 

[LoTrobador]

Joom-reap soo-a Suga ,

I'm sorry for not replying you earlier; you write on very interesting subjects, and I regret I wasn't feeling well enough in the past days to write anything.

Unfortunately, I know only very few phrases in Khmer - but being interested in world history, it would be hard for me not to learn of the Khmer language and culture. And I think this "esoteric" meaning of Aw Kuhn can be a wonderful way to express one's gratitude. Are there other words and phrases in Khmer that have both exoteric and esoteric meaning? And aw kuhn for illuminating me about those aspects of Khmer culture.

Regarding your Great-Grandfather, I thought you might have been referring to His Holiness Somdet Phra Ariyavangsagatayana Somdet Phra Sangharaja; but according to what you write the date of his funeral doesn't match the dates on this website (which also provides a photograph of the Sangharaja). And the story of his dream, of becoming a monk and years later reviving Cambodia's Sangha - that's fascinating. Reminds me very much of many Christian life stories of God's Providence acting in one's life.

And the traditions and customs concerning using names and more "indirect" forms of addressing people (especially members of one's family) are really interesting. It reminds me of the French "Vous" when addressing a person, rather than simply "tu", and the manner of speaking in third person as a sing of utmost respect. Like you've said - it reinforces the relationship and connection between two people; reminds of this relationship and might even strengthen the family bonds in an unconscious way.

As for the etymology of "religion", to quote two Early Christian authors:

- Lactantius:"We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name." (Divine Institutes, IV, xxviii)
- Augustine of Hippo: "Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God." (Retractions, I, xiii)

So, they both seem to derive religio from religo, religare (religat being the 3rd sg. pres. ind. act.); religo, religare itself could be divided into re- (again) and -ligo (different from your re-ligi only in one letter) / -ligare (to bind, unite; 1st sg. pres. ind. act. / pres. act. inf., respectively) - interpretation supporting your etymology.

And the teaching on the Church being the Mystical Body of Christ is an important Catholic doctrine; there's even an encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi - "Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Mystical Body of Christ". I think this teaching might not necessarily be the exact source of the strong communitarian ethos of some Christians, there are other passages in the Bible concerning the relationship between the believers themselves and the Chiuch to the world, but that's an important teaching on the very nature of the Church.

Well, that's a subject on which many books can be written, but I think I've seen it being postulated, that the Western individualism might actually be a result of (or might have been influenced by) the same historic process that divided the Western Christianity into many denominations - the Reformation: postulating that the individual theologians', the Reformers', interpretations are the true interpretations of the Scriptures, against the teachings present within the 16th centiry Catholic Church, against the authority of Councils and Popes.

Concerning this relationship between Bhikku-Sangha and Ariya-Sangha, I think it's very much like the relationship between Catholic mendicant Orders (as well as eremites and other Orders and monasteries - both Catholic and Orthodox - relying to an extent on the donations and support) and the laity of the Church - laos (the people of God) gives food, money, and the monks give their advice, prayer, teachings, homilies, writings, celebrate Sacraments; the relationship is mutual, it's simply that the offerings are different, while important to both the religious and the laity.

And regarding your Mother's objections towards some of the behaviour of the bhikkus, it reminds me of the objections that some traditional Catholics have towards some of the clergy - not wearing clerical clothing (which could serve as a sing of consecration), dancing (the potential to create a situation that might lead to temptation), generally speaking behaviour that might be seen as not necessarily appropriate for them, as people who were consecrated.

(And while all those subjects might not necessarily address questions of the OP, I think they do address the subject the relationship between one's faith and works. )

 

[SugaCubez352]

Soo-a sdey Lok LoTrador

I don't know anymore 'esoteric' meanings behind khmer phrases. That was the only one I knew. You type you Khmer so well too!

Me and my mom were looking through the pix of the Supreme Patriarchs and didn't recognize anybody. They one you pointed out who pasted away in 1988 looks a lot like my great grand father, but I wasn't even born in 1988 when the Patriarch past. So we got confused. It looks like a "Samdech Prieh Sang" and a "Sangreach" are different things. We didn't know this. We had to call my grandma to explain the confusion. My great grand father was the Samdech Prieh of the Thammayudt Sangha in Thailand, not The "Supreme Patriarch" of Thailand. We did a little research on the Thammayudt sangha and found some confirmation. The name "Pan" is associated with this order which is our Family name. I did not know there was a "supreme patriarch" that was bigger than a Samdech Sang. I did ask my mom many times before if the great grandpa was the spiritual leader of all of Thailand's Theravada or just of a sangha and she always said she wasn't sure. Guess we learned something. Plus thos pix of the supreme patriarchs all still looked too "young." My great gramps was very, very old looking, like a bald raisin in orange sheets

"Ligare" means to bind and Unite... social cohesion! Thanks! Re-Ligion means to re-bind/re-connect people together into a living coherent body! Which brings us back to the topic of this thread... since I derailed it...

Which is better, faith or works? Belonging to a religion, or just being good?

I would have to go along with what Jesus once said when asked a question similar to this long ago: "By there fruits ye shall know them, grapes don't grow from thistles."

Claiming a religion and just being good IMO distracts ones attention away from what really should matter: the causal results... fruit of ones actions, beliefs, goodness, kindness, generosity, and empathy. These virtues transcends sects and religions. They transcend opinions and convictions.

It is very easy to claim to be good in word. Many religions and people often claim goodness as their central quality... but the results of their actions speaks something entirely different.

I don't mean to be mean with any religion, but it not unusual for a religion to preach doctrines of goodness and compassion with their mouths and holy books and murder and tyrannize thousands of people in action via some inquisition, witch hunt, moral police (in regards to Islam), Jihad, etc.

Individual people can also believe themselves to be good, and may try to be good in life, but the question is what fruit have their goodness bore? How far does such kindness and benevolence go in deed, praxis, and action? How many other people and lives are affected and inspired by one's goodness?

I think our modern western world is too incoherent... to divided (and easily conquered by corporations & political regimes)... too segregated... too socially, emotionally, and psychologically individualized. Community doesn't mean anything anymore. People walk past each other in the streets without a smile as if the other doesn't exist. We walk past bums like they aren't really there. If a car has a flat tire on the freeway, how many of those hundreds of cars take a few moments to help out?

To me it seems as thoe we have lost the essence Religion and Sangha. It seems as though today we only pay lip service to goodness and kindness... but we are too busy to be bothered to DO anything fruitfully good and kind for others. But this is just a personal perspective of mine. It is not my only perspective of this matter. It is just one perspective.

Is faith or works better? I personally say neither. What counts is the end results of both your faith and/or works.

 

[LoTrobador]

Soo-a Sdey Lok Srey SugaCubez

So I'm glad I've learned about that one phrase. And I try to make my spelling as accurate as I can, websites about Khmer language and culture are very helpful.

I didn't know that the offices of the Sanghareach and the Sangharaja were separate; it did cross my mind that there might be an office of the leader of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya different from that of the Patriarch, but I think I just thought the leader of bhikkus might be at the same time the leader of both Bhikku-Sangha and Ariya-Sangha, thus the Sangharaja - but I'm happy I've learned about the office of Samdech Preah Sanghareach and this difference. So you have a very important person in your family, and a very close connection to the history of both Thai and Cambodian Sangha, in the very important period of their history!

Concerning the OP:

In your opinion- Is it more important to believe a certain religion, or more important to be good and benevolent no matter what your religion is?

By what standard would one determine, what is good and how is benevolence expressed?