BUDDHISM CORRESPONDENCE

Subject: Samma Ajiva or Right Livelihood

       Dear Dhamma Friends,

        Samma Ajiva or right livelihood in the olden days may be rather limited and can be a practical Sila to follow, but nowadays livelihood has become more sophisticated as weaponry, consumer goods and their trade have been expanded substantially. Basically any livelihood that involves with harming living beings may have to be regarded as a wrong livelihood. Then what about livelihood involving a trade with seemingly harmless items in the past, such as tobacco, amphetamine and related drugs, pyrithrum and other natural pesticides, to mention a few. Tobacco has now become a major health concern and a considerable number of livelihoods will be affected if it's trade is regarded as a wrong way of living. It can cause a wide range of lung diseases as well as ischaemic heart diseases, which are killing millions of people or making them disabled. It's impact on human welfare is far worse than a livelihood involving nuclear weapon or other mass killing weaponry. If one is involved with a wrong livelihood and is also trying to cleanse oneself morally and spiritually, what would be the consequences?

        Is there any evidence in the literature to support the hypothesis that one can get enlightened despite leading a wrong livelihood. I would appreciate your comments my dear Dhamma friends! With Metta Tin Htut

       The world is so complex that it is almost impossible to not inadvertantly be supporting some negative livelihood! Certain companies that seem to produce wholesome products are owned by larger corporations that may engage in weaponry, factories causing pollution, etc. It is almost a full-time job trying to discern who owns who and making wise decisions as a consumer as well as an employee! I think all we can do here is try. And have the right intention. Attention and intention facilitate right view and effort and hopefully in practising this we can make some progress. Very difficult. Sparklestar

       It is absolutely right. Any livelihood may one way or another linked with a wrong livelihood in this sophisticated world. However, those who live in developing third world countries (e.g. Burma) may have a greater chance to live a simple live and strive for enlightenment. It might be one of the reasons why it was so difficult to get enlightened in this part of the world, whilst there were quite a few persons who reached a noble status in developing countries. With Metta Tin Htut

       One who engages in a wrong livelihood cannot attain nibbana - whether directly or indirectly involved in such a wrongful trade. This is because samma ajiva is one of the Noble Eight-fold path. To attain nibbana one must have all these (or it would have been called the noble sixfold path and so on)! Let me clarify the directness and indirectness of such jobs. Livelihoods which should be avoided are those which trade: - weapons/arms - human beings - flesh/ animals bred for slaughter - intoxicants - poisons To sell or promote any such trade is directly engaging in wrong livelihood. To indirectly engage in such is to do accounts for such a firm or to build slaughter houses, or improve machinery for such a business. If your company is however owned by a giant specialising in the above mentioned you are not really involved in wrong livelihood, because you are not promoting their development. If you sell prescription drugs the same applies - because you are not promoting the abuse of drugs and your volition is to cure someone. If your job involves developing drugs to kill viruses it is not really wrong because viruses are not really classified as living organisms. As for worrying about other microbes you must remember to take a middle-path approach (or you would be a Jain), since you have no intention of killing them, but only curing someone it cannot really be a bad karma, - or one would have to constantly live in fear of killing microbes with every movement made and breath taken as our environment is full of them. In conclusion, there is no bending of the rules; So long as you are engaged in wrong livelihood there is no way of attaining nibbana! - unless you give up that job and renounce your lay life. I hope this has solved your problem. with metta Sandaruwani Abeysiri.

       To understand Samma Ajiva, the right livelihood, we have to define what is right and what is wrong. Because there are many kinds of beliefs and cultural differences the safest definition would be the livelihood which does not cause harm to ourselves or to the others. Every meaning has different shades and intensity. For example, if you say something is cold, it compares to something hotter. It is all relative until you reach the absolute truth. The law of cause and effect understood by a lay man is different from the one understood by somebody practicing vippasana meditation or those who have seen beyond the absolute truth (i.e. nibbana) at different levels, namely Sotapan, Sakadagam, Anagam and Arahat.

        For lay man, if you have the five silas, it is good enough to practice meditation. That means we should not be involved in livelihoods which involve direct or intentional killing ( eg. fighting wars, hunting, fishing etc.). We should not take things or possessions of other people, which are not given to us in an accepted reasonable way. ( eg. stealing, taking too much profit: rip-off, avoiding lawfull tax). Our livelihoods should be free of sexual misconducts(eg. prostitution), false speech ( eg. falsifying the price of goods to sell, lawyers who have to mislead or falsify the truth for the client to win), and using and selling intoxicants( eg. alcohol, addictive drugs). This does not mean that we could not meditate if we have done one or more of these misconducts in the past. If you have done bad deeds, the bad results will happen at different times according to the strength of your intentions and efforts. If this bad results coincide with the stage of your progressive insight development, it will deter you to progress to the higher stages of wisdom and can cause delays, which can be years to many life cycles. But every conditioned physical or mental state is impermanent. The good as well as the bad. The results will be impermanent too.

        That is why it has been said that even the notorious Ajatasattu, who killed his Sotapan father king, after suffering many many lives in the lower or bad hell-like places will one day reappear to understand the ultimate truth 'nibbana'.(He went to take refuge in Buddha, but could not meditate beyond a certain limit.). The best livelihood for enlightenment is to be a Sangha practising vipassana meditation, without stopping until the last state of enlightenment is reached. If somebody is continuously observing the arising and disappearing to the senses, in a non judgemental way, he will be experiencing the true nature of the physical and mental states, namely: anicca, dukkha and anatta. At each and every second of this meditative focussed mental state, it is almost impossible to practice or lead a miccha ajiva, which is too rough and distasteful to the serene meditative mind. May all beings have a chance to lead Samma Ajiva. Peter Khin Tun, Reading.

       T.Htut wrote: < Then what about livelihood involving a trade with seemingly harmless items in the past, such as tobacco, amphetamine and related drugs, pyrithrum and other natural pesticides, to mention a few. >

       I suppose you could group them into the category of "poison".

       < If one is involved with a wrong livelihood and is also trying to cleanse oneself morally and spiritually, what would be the consequences? Then once would be creating both bad and good kamma. Is there any evidence in the literature to support the hypothesis that one can get enlightened despite leading a wrong livelihood. >

       None that I've read or heard. However, having got involved with wrong livelihood in this life does not rule out enlightenment in this life; e.g. Ven. Ahimsaka, a.k.a. Angulimala, who give up the wrong way of life and became the Blessed One's disciple. But we have to acknowledge that it would not be easy. The Ven. must have ha d a very powerful store of the right kamma from his past lives. peace Ven. Kumãra Bhikkhu

       I thought the *only* person known to have attained Arahatta while being a lay person was the Buddha's father, King Suddhodana. Would like to know the source for the above account of the minister. We should note that none of the above people were engaged in wrong livelihood at the time of spiritual awakening. peace Ven. Kumãra Bhikkhu

       The Minister referred to above was called Santati. (Verse 142, Dhammapada) (full account at http://www.nibbana.com/dmpada2g.htm#santati It must be a very rare occurrence for a lay man to attain Arahatship due to all forms of temptations and distraction and much rarer for the women who may face more hardships.

       Hi Bhante, Firstly I hope that you are well, happy and peaceful. I hope your trip to Thailand had been fruitful. The source of the story had been pointed out by MMLwin. Actually I heard the story from Dhamma talks given by 2 different Sayadaws. The first time is from Sayadaw U Dhammika and the second from Sayadaw U Pannananda, both from Panditarama. However there was also another case of a lay person attaining arahantship: The chief Bhikkhuni disciple Khema whom was the chief consort of King Bimbisara. The account of how she attained enlightenment under the skillful guidance of the Buddha is mentioned in the book "Great Disciples of the Buddha." I agree with you that none of those I mentioned were engaged in wrong livelihood at the time of their spiritual achievement. I don't believe that any spiritual achievements of their height is possible without having firstly relinquish their wrongful ways. As Ven. Angulimala himself said: Who once did live in negligence And then is negligent no more, He illuminates the world Like the moon freed from a cloud. Who checks the evil deeds he did By doing wholesome deeds instead, He iluminates the world Like the moon freed from a cloud Metta & with much reverence Eng Joo

       There are four modes of birth as far as I can gather. (1) womb born (2) egg born (3) instantaneous rebirth, Upapatika (4) born from moisture etc. I would imagine that microbes and lower life forms will belong to the last category. If I am not wrong creatures who can experience pain and pleasure will only be regarded as sentient beings, and thus killing or harming sentient beings would only be attributable to Panatipata. In other words creatures who reproduce sexually and have some sort of a family may be regarded as sentient beings and any loss of life to these creatures will cause a suffering. Microbes will have to be classified to the same category as sperms and killing them may not be a bad Kamma. However, we cannot cover ourselves with intention or volition context only. One may consider mercy killing to be innocent if volition is the only factor and one would be less thoughtful in advising or carrying out abortions either by using drugs or surgically in the context of helping or saving lives. If selling or producing harmful drugs, chemicals, consumable items, tobacco, weaponry, sex and human trade and animal products are classified as wrong livelihood, then over 90% of livelihoods will be involved. Doctors are also not immune to a wrong livelihood if they use drugs to cure worm and parasitic infestations, to cause abortions, to kill a life etc. despite protecting themselves by the volition context. In conclusion, we must live a very simple life, if not possible to be a Bhikku, if we are really ambitious to become enlightened in this very life, and leading a simple life may not be feasible in this part of the world if you have a family. With Metta Tin Htut

       < Firstly I hope that you are well, happy and peaceful. I hope your trip to Thailand had been fruitful. >

        It's been a very educational trip. Btw, you should have introduced yourself when we happened to meet in Hock Eng's house last month.

        < However there was also another case of a lay person attaining arahantship: The chief Bhikkhuni disciple Khema whom was the chief consort of King Bimbisara. The account of how she attained enlightenment under the skillful >uidance of the Buddha is mentioned in the book "Great Disciples of the Buddha.>

       " Ah, yes! I forgot about this one!

       < lwin@nibbana.com wrote: The Minister referred to above was called Santati. (Verse 142, Dhammapada) >

       I'll look it up, Lwin. (And, btw, thanks for offering Nibbana.com to the world.) It seems I've been rather ignorant of such cases. Thanks to both of you for pointing them out. peace Ven. Kumãra Bhikkhu

       As Dr. Tin Htut states "If your job involves developing drugs to kill viruses, it is not really wrong because viruses are not really classified as living organisms."

       Also Bacteria are not mentioned in the Scriptures so we have to reflect for ourselves. I think it unlikely that bacteria have mental faculties and are able to committ akusala or kusala kamma. Consider a mould of bacteria where millions of them exist in a tiny area. Do they each have individual mental faculties , each making its own kamma? It seems that they may be more similar to plants (in the Buddhist sense or not having mind)which are sometimes called one facultied but which are not sentient. Robert

Knowingly or Unknowingly

       Dear Dhamma Friends,

        I'd like to impose this controversial question for your opinions. When a sin is committed which has much graver consequences, knowingly or unknowingly? With Metta Tin Htut

       Dear Tin, most definitely- knowingly. Our mental volition(karma) is the most important aspect of our behaviour, more so than physical and vocal. if, through hatred and anger, you plunge a knife into the chest of somebody and they die, this is most certainly bad karma. however a heart surgeon, who commits the same action, yet does so through love and compassion for the person whose life he is trying to save, will have completely different karma (mental voilition). so although the same result has happened, the different karma is what is important here. same with a 'sin', or commiting a negative act against another sentient being. if this is done with intention, through hatred, jealousy or any other such mental impurity, this is surely very bad. however if I unintentionally step on an ant, killing it, well as long as I dont run my foot over it a few times and say 'sucker', then this does not have the same negative karma as does the intentional action. (It should be remembered here that this is according to the Buddhas doctrine on karma. A Jain, however, does not saee this distinction and that is why when you see them in India they will often be wearing face masks and sweeping the gropund on which they are about to walk-for fear of UNintentionally killing any sentient being). But in buddhist terms, an intentional wrong doing has far graver consequences than an unintentional wrong doing. May all beings be happy; Gav x

       Dear Gavin, Thanks for the reply. The question put forwarded has been on the issue of a sin that was committed knowingly or unknowingly. It stated clearly that a sin or a bad Kamma has already been committed and therefore volition was involved. Your answer may be of three categories, either much graver or less graver when committed knowingly, or it is the same. There can be different opinions on this issue and I would like to have your view please. With Metta Tin Htut

       Dear Dhamma Friends, I would like to clarify on term knowingly or unknowingly. It refers generally to the four Noble Truths and specifically to the consequences of a Kamma. For instance, a Buddhist knows that killing animals is bad, but followers of other faiths may justify such an action as not detrimental if it is done for food, mercy killing or for sacrifice. What would be the consequences if such an action is done with or without knowledge of the Kamma. With Metta Tin Htut

       An interesting question. I remember one of the commentaries explaining that it may be worse when one does some wrong kamma not knowing that it is wrong. The analogy is someone picking up a hot pot. If we know it is hot we are very careful and pick it up in such a way as to minimize any burning. Whereas someone else may not realize the pot is hot and pick up casually thereby getting burnt. Some people think killing animals is not wrong - they enjoy hunting. For them the wrong kamma is repeated and there are no conditions for giving up these actions. Someone else may be in a situation that makes it difficult to avoid killing - they are very poor, have a family to support etc. But they know that killing has moral implications and are spurred to develop more understanding, do as many good deeds as they can. Eventually their situation may change and they will immediately stop this killing. Ignorance is the deepest and hardest root to pull up.

       Dear Tin, when you say knowingly, do you mean knowing the law of karma, or knowingly doing a wrongdoing against another sentient being? someone might abuse another person, but in their eyes they haven't commited a wrong doing(due to a lack of compassion and unawareness of the law of karma), or someone may abuse another person, knowing their action to be detrimental to the other persons happiness and aware of the karmic consequences (skt. karma phal) of their actions. can you clarify this for me. with metta, gavin x

       There are three major ingredient on complete karma: 1. The thought and motivation of doing something; 2. The action itself; 3. The state of mind after the action is completed. So if thought of something pure or unpure and did not continue in it. Karma is already committed but ithe full impact of its effect is not process. This also goes with the state of mind after the act is performed. One might feel remorseful. James Tan
Alternative url.: <http://www.cyberway.com.sg/~norbu3/home.htm>
Bodhi-Web Url: <http://members.xoom.com/norbu3/index.htm>

       Hi Dhamma Friends of this list, I have been on this list for a while now and have been silently observing the various discussion that have took place so far. The present discussion originating from the question on difference in consequences of unwholesome action when performed with and without the knowledge of kammic consequences, reminded me of a passage from the Milindapanha I read sometime ago.

        In that passage King Milinda asked the same question of the Ven. Nagasena. I quote the passage below in the hope that it will help with this discussion.

        King Milinda said: "Revered Nagasena, for whom is the greater demerit: he who does an evil deed knowingly or he who does an evil deed unknowingly?" "His is the greater demerit, sire, who does an evil deed unknowingly." "Well then, revered sir, do we doubly punish any of our family or our court who does an evil deed unknowingly?" "What do you think about this, sire? If a man should unknowingly take hold of a red-hot ball of iron, glowing with heat, and another should take hold of it knowingly, which would be more severely burnt?" "He who took hold of it unknowingly, revered sir, would be more severely burnt." "Even so, sire, the greater demerit is his who does an evil deed unknowingly." "You are dexterous, revered Nagasena." (Reference to "The Questions of King Milinda. An Abridgement of the Milindapanha" edited by N.K.G. Mendis published by Buddhist Publication Society)

       It is clear from this passage that the common adage that "Ignorance is bliss" bears no weight in the light of the Buddha Dhamma. Infact ignorance is the fountainhead that propels a being on and on again to seek rebirth in Samsara and to experience again and again its accompanying unsatisfactoriness and insecurity. May all beings work diligently to clear their eyes of the dust of ignorance. Metta, Eng Joo

       First of all I welcome eng joo.welcome eng joo this is from your big ma ma. Once Buddha was asked by his disciple.Which merit is greater the one he does to Buddha or the one Buddha does to him.So Buddha replied the one Buddha does is greater because he knows the concequences of actions better.So shall we apply this to our question at hand?

       Thanks Emma for the welcome. Have not seen you for a while. Hope you are well and happy. But if I know you, you will always be your cheerful self : )

       Thanks also for sharing the story below. This is the first time I hear about it. Which sutta is it from? It so happen that I was just reading a bookmark infront of me with a passage from the Itivuttaka which reads as follow: "Monks, if beings knew, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given nor would the taint of miserliness overcome and stay in their minds. Even if it were their last morsel, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having someone to share it with. But, monks, because beings do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given and the taint of miserliness overcomes and stays in their minds." Well it is said that dana which is perform with wisdom is more meritorious compare to that which is done separate from wisdom. In the story you quoted it is the degree of wisdom present which is in question. Since the Buddha is an Arahat, his wholesome action is incapable of generating more wholesome kamma. Therefore it may not be right to speak of merit in the case of the Buddha's actions. Speaking of giving, VMC is organising a lunch dana next Sunday 19th March at its premises in Bedok. Please come and join us if you can. Bring along your whole family too. Metta, Eng Joo

       Thri Kay, Hi! You said the story about Buddha and merit. Even then if he (the other) isn't as aware as the buddha about the nature of karma, isn't he just as noble for commiting a good action? I mean, if he doesnt know the full 'effects' of karma yet is still behaving in a way as to accumalate merit, isn't this as meritorious as someone who knows the benefit they will receive from giving, say. My point is that you (all of us) don't want people to start doing good deeds just for the merit they are accumalting and for the future fruit of their karma. The six perfections and four sublime states should become spontaneous behaviour and responses (yes, after continued practice, of course), not just rites we perform to accumalte merit. May all beings grow in the dhamma and attain true peace and happiness. Gav x

       Eng Joo, Hi, My name is gavin and I have recently moved to canberra. Yes, you have clarified this point nicely, thankyou. (dana which is performed with wisdom is more meritorious than dana performed without). I have been pleased to discover quite a dhamma community here in canberra, including a local vipassana 'home', where old students get togther to practice on tuesday nights. Great to know the dhamma is alive in canberra. May all beings be happy. Gav x

       Dear Dhamma Friends, All of us have replied to the above question unanimously that doing a bad Kamma unknowingly is far graver than doing it knowingly. It shows how well read and well informed are the participants of the discussion group. Without such a knowledge we may incline to consider that doing unknowingly will be less graver. However, if one commits a bad Kamma knowingly, but without paying due regard to its consequences what would be the outcome? Will it still be less graver than doing it unknowingly? For instance, we know that killing animals is not right, but what if we go fishing for sports or for fun? We are doing it unnecessarily just to please ourselves. Will it have a lesser consequence than doing it unknowingly that it is a bad Kamma? One of our group has put forward a question when it was right to kill. The person had a problem with infestation with mice in the kitchen, but was reluctant to use a bait to wipe them off. In such a case I would consider that it would be less graver even if the person had resorted to baiting as the last option. The volition of the offence would be far less than doing it unknowingly. It is mentioned in the texts that killing larger animals such as elephants is far graver than killing insects even if it differs greatly in the number. It is the intensity of the volition that is counted rather than the number, I would imagine. Any suggestions? With Metta Tin Htut

       Yes, Dr Htut,

       Killing a bunch of mosquitoes would cretainly be far less offence than killing , say ,a cat not to say any larger animal.we have a saying if the Volation is strong the Kamma is effective.You can imagine the difference in efforts ,energy and volition in commiting these acts.Thats why we say good Kamma takes time to manifest whereas the results of bad kamma is very fast. I remember a yogi asking the meditation master how to avoid the bad kamma if she wants to get rid of rats in her house.The Sayadaw told her to warn the rats of the intention to poisin them a few days ahead.

       Dear Daw Thiri

       It's a good advice to lessen bad Kamma when you consider baiting the rats, but how are you going to warn them? Can you think of a universal way of communicating with animals? With Metta Tin Htut

       Re: Warning the rats ahead of time This is not such a mysterious process. I, too, was told by a very practiced and wise yogi that we can communicate quite successfully with animals, such as rats and ants, by giving them a calm, loving, and kind set of feelings. We explain to them that they, too, have a right to live on this earth, but there are difficulties in sharing the same space with humans. By literally having a brief conversation with them, you alert them that you will have to take steps to ensure a separation of living quarters. I have done this technique with ants that invade our kitchen in the spring; if I do not do this, they increase and multiply, causing all sorts of aggravation. Poisons are expensive and harmful to all of us. So don't even consider them! Animal life forms respond to the same levels of kindness and compassion that humans do. In fact, they may respond without the same questioning and over-demanding reasoning with which we seem to function all the time. In the past I have even made a deal with the ants: I will place a few pieces of old bread, etc. outside where they can retrieve it, and they will not come into my house. It may sound ridiculous, but I assure you that such compassion works. Every so often, of course, a stray ant who has not gotten the word will come in, but I tell him to talk to his friends. The ants do very valuable scavenging work for us humans and they need their own respect for such efforts. Frankly, we can co-exist with all creatures and support one another. We can also get rid of the poisons. There is also no reason to believe that this does not work. It does. It just requires extending metta to all the creatures of the earth, and not just those whom we judge as receptive to such feelings. Sincerely, Stan

       Dear Stan, That was exactly what I wanted. When we were asked by a Dhamma colleague how to get rid of mice infestation I have recommended a similar approach, but I did not have a first hand experience and therefore I was not sure if it worked. There are a lot of stories how Metta can influence animals, even much better than using force. I fully support your view and your approach. If we have a pure heart and a genuine kindness these sort of things will surely work. With Metta Tin Htut

       We had a lot of rats at our meditation center once. Then the Sayadaw's kappiya ask us to buy rat traps: not the one with the sharp teeth that bite the rats, killing them when they take the bait, but the one where they get caught in a cage. After catching them in the cage: and there were quite a lot of them, the kappiya released them somewhere else. But I guess the best method is that of prevention. We need to ensure cleanliness and orderliness and that left over food are put away properly, etc. This is one way we can protect our sila. Prevention is better than cure they say. Also one Venerable one suggested the method of metta, citing a true example of how a man managed to keep his sila intact when his boss asked him to get rid of a bee-hive that had grown on a tree in the car park of their factory. The man radiated metta to these bees and "pleaded" with them to leave. And somehow the bees really left. Another of my teacher adviced that if there really is no other way except to break the sila, then try to reduce the harm that is done. But in the case of killing I guess we can only try to reduce the defilements involved checking it so that it does not grow, because no matter how much we try to reduce the harm, the being is still killed in the end. And I guess if we really break the precept under such circumstances than we must determine that we will take steps in the future to prevent such circumstances from arising again. And of course life goes on as usual till Nibbana is realised. This is call samsara, the imperfect place : ) Metta, Eng Joo

Subject: Vipassana - Yes; Triple Gem - No

       Dear Friends,

       Vipassana is said to be non-sectarian and suitable for all people regardless of age, sex, race and religion. Many practising European Meditators said they had no intention of changing to a different religion even though they are getting benefits from Vipassana. They have been told that no switch was necessary when they began their Meditation. Most Venerable monks and Theravada Texts affirm that the meditators need to have absolute faith in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha) for any degree of enlightenment. Why do we appear to have given different advice? Why should we have different goals for different people? Should we be more `open' in the beginning? Yours in the Dhamma Myanmarman

       One can benefit from the dhamma without reaching the final goal in this life. Many start their practice without an intention to reach enlightenment but to gain calmness or blissful feelings. We can teach the Four Noble Truths without anyone taking the refuges. With time they may want to, but it is up to them. Isn't it? Metta, Jerry

       Dear Myanmarman,

       This is an important question. I think we need to discuss exactly what vipassana is: Vipassana is highly developed wisdom that penetrates the true nature of nama and rupa. It is anatta, not self, it arises if there are the correct conditions and can't if there are not. Where does faith in the triple gem come in? It develops along with wisdom. The more one sees the true nature of nama and rupa the greater is ones confidence that what the Buddha taught is entirely true. This type of faith is different from the faith of those who adopt Buddhism because they were taught it by their parents . It is the faith that comes from direct experience. Someone may start to learn about the development of satipatthana and have little faith in Buddhism but if they began to understand realities in the present moment they would gain faith. They would naturally respect the triple gem and give up their old beliefs. Certainly anyone who attains (I mean really attains - not just an imitation )any level of vipassana would have great confidence and understanding of the Buddhas teaching: they could no longer accept any beliefs opposed to it.

       It might also be useful to discuss what mindfulness is. Some people imagine it to be a type of concentration exercise where they focus on breath, or body, or their movements. But this is merely concentration: Mindfulness,sati, is that reality that is heedful or watchful in the wholesome way. It is not the same as concentrating on an object - which can be either wholesome (kusala) or unwholesome (akusala). For example, a thief may, with great care, gently feel the subtle sensations appearing at his finger tips while he cracks the combination to a safe. In this case there is concentration, but no mindfulness, sati. This example of wrong concentration is easily understood; our difficulty is that wrong concentration can and does come in very subtle shades. And because some aspects of sati appear similar to concentration it is often extremely difficult to know whether the reality that is contacting the object is sati with concentration and thus kusala (wholesome) or merely concentration without sati and thus akusala (unwholesome).

       Thus developing TRUE vipassana is no easy matter. It takes study, circumspection , investigation, past accumulations ..... There are different kinds and degrees of sati. Considering the impermanence of life in a wise way is done with sati or we may feel genuinely friendly or grateful to someone; at that time a type of sati arises. The type of sati that is associated with the development of vipassana is a direct awareness of a physical reality (in Pali: rupa) or mental reality (nama). This is all from the Buddhist definition of sati. Of course anyone else is permitted to define it in any way they please. But when it applies to the development of vipassana, which is the path that ultimately leads to a complete breakup of the causes that have kept samsara turning for so long, we must define it properly and carefully. Robert

       Dear Robert and Jerry,

       Faith (Saddha) comes under the two headings of the 37 Bodhipakkhiya or the factors leading to enlightenment. It is one of the five faculties of spiritual ( Indriya) and physical (Bo) requisites for enlightenment. Faith is equally important as the other four requisites, which are effort (Viriya), mindfulness (Sati), concentration (Samadhi), and wisdom (Panna). Faith, as you have put it, may not be a taught or accquired faith, but we need to have a faith in the four Noble Truths (Dhamma), in the teacher who taught it (Buddha), and in the Sanghas who preserve it. This is collectively known as the Triple Gem. You may practise Vipassana without faith in the Triple Gem to obtain peace of mind and bliss, but to get substantial progress in wisdom you will need faith. Without the faith in the Triple Gem it is impossible to have any level of insight wisdom, not even the basic levels (Paccaya-pariggaha nana and Samasana nana).

       These insights are first hand knowledge of the cause and effect pertaining to the right understanding. You may have other features of Samadhi when practised without the faith. If you consider that you have reached the insight wisdom, then you would have faith at least in the Dhamma although you might not acknowledge it. Only Sammasam buddhas and Peccaka buddhas are capable of understanding these wisdom without having faith in the Triple Gem. Other Yogis (lay meditators) need a teacher to understand these Truths and thus, must have a faith in the teacher.

        Please note that if you learn directly either form a person, or indirectly from books etc. we regard the source as a teacher in Buddhist terms. Those who preach that one does not require a conversion to Buddhism is to lure inquisitive people into the practise of Vipassana. One may start without conversion, but when one becomes progressive one will have developed faith in the Noble Truths. Conversion to Buddhism does not require formalities or rituals, but to acknowledge that you have faith in the Triple Gem, at least in your mind if you do not say it aloud. With Metta Tin Htut

       Dear Dhamma Friends,

       Thanks to Myanmarman for highlighting this highly controversial situation. And there are wider issues involved. I just wish to mention the one which worries me most. Just assume, all other religions adopt Vipassana but without Triple Gem. The original Vipassana as taught by the Buddha, will be modified to reflect their belief in God and universal Soul. There may be peaceful moments for the non-Buddhist meditators, mentally and physically, in this life from practising Vipassana. It may work to some extent for achieving peace and tranquility and this success though limited may damage the Vipassana Meditation by listing it as a form of mental therapy. Some one may claim that the Christian, Jewish or Muslim modification of Vipassana is better than the ancient original. We do need to monitor this situation and the statistics on post-meditation outcome as well as conversion rates should be studied.

        I feel that most of these new meditators may not progress, as they are on the wrong track and adhere to their wrong life styles incompatible with the Buddhist Teachings. As a matter of fact it doesn't matter for them as they don't believe in Kamma, our concept of future existences, Samsara, and our final goal, Nibbana. So it may be a waste of time and efforts, if our aim is to help them towards the Buddhist Goal. Just imaging you were born in Jambudipa in Buddha's time,' Will you as a follower of the Buddha say to these people like this? `You just practise Vipassana. You don't need to follow the Buddha. Go back to Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Niganta Nataputa, or whoever. There is no need to change your beliefs.' I won't have the guts to say such a thing even now.

       I trust our Venerable members of the Order of Sangha as they observe monastic rules and do not deviate from the Truth. I believe we must have faith in the Buddha, His Teachings and His Bhikkhus. We can tell them that the time will come when they may develop faith in the Triple Gem and get supramundane benefit as a result, if that is what they are after. The Buddha is against forceful conversion and He does not welcome blind faith. They should be willing to explore what Buddhism can offer and also be flexible and open-minded to new beliefs.

       Should there be an honest health warning, like, `Vipassana may change your life style and belief'? That way, we can avoid time-wasters, short-sighted beings and concentrate our resources for those who are really serious and ripe for a change. Who knows they could be your old relatives or friends in previous existences. With metta, Maung Lwin

       Dear Maung Lwin,

       Quite right. As you say we should put a warning - Buddhism will change your beliefs and lifestyle. In fact if someone does not change their belief can we say they are doing vipassana? It is actually merely concentration exercises- not vipassana. They may feel more calm and relaxed by this. Great, but to call it vipassana is wrong (it would be laughable except that these wrong ideas are spreading). The stages of vipassana are increasingly deeper levels into the true nature of reality. If one has directly experienced any stage - which means they have ever growing insight into conditions and anatta- how could they still not believe in kamma (for example) or think there was anything permanent such as a soul, or believe that a God controlled anything?

        I don't see, actually, how anyone could even approach the first stage - nama-rupa parrichedda nana, insight into mind and matter, without a correct understanding of anatta and conditions. The only way to get such understanding is via Buddhist teachings. It is of course possible for one to go to some Buddhist place , meet a good teacher, listen to them and to accumulate theory and direct experience at the same time. Nevertheless this is a very gradual process.

        I worry that vipassana is being hocked on the market place as a quick fix remedy - something that it could not be. It is rather easy for people to misunderstand and take an imitation for the real thing. People these days are in much hurry for quick results. I personally feel that we should be very up front with the teachings of the Buddha. It should be explained that vipassana can take lifetimes , or even aeons before deep insight is gained. If one is sincere about developing understanding this is not a problem - they are ready to do whatever has to be done, no matter whether results come quickly or slowly. Robert ---

Subject: Dhutangas, the ascetic practices

       Dear group,

        I have a question. How do the dhutangas, the ascetic practices fit in with the middle path? Also I remember there was a monk who never sat or laid down - he became an arahant but died in a very short time. Does anyone have some information on this monk? I think he was one of the 80 great disciples. Robert

       Dear Robert,

       The Dhutangas as described in the Texts are not of extreme nature. There are 13 types altogether and some or them are quite flexible in terms of the actual practice as well as the duration. They are often described as 'austere' practices. These were even practised in the Buddha's times when He emphasised on the Middle Way. The Late Venerable Sayadaw U Nyanika had discussed in his book, 'The Sasana, Hard to Encounter'. Please click on this link for details. http://www.nibbana.com/sasana2a.htm#dhutangas

       These appear to have been designed to achieve eradication of defilements in the most efficient way, potentiating the Meditation Practice. Yours in the Dhamma, Myanmarman

       Dear Robert, Dhutanga is an ascetic practise, but it is not necessarily a severe practice as you imagine. It can be a form of practice in eating, wearing, living, resting etc. I presume that almost every good Sangha practises Dhutanga of one form or the other. For instance, almost every monk will eat from alms bowl which is a Dhutangha. Some will eat only once a day in a single go, may wear robes made of discarded cloth, may stay at cemetery, or may never lie down to rest. It is practised to enhance determination, effort, perseverance and patience in renouncing sensual pleasures. It is within the practice of the middle way as long as the asceticism is not extreme.

        I would imagine that it is also a factor of enlightenment (Bojjhanga) as it embraces Viriya, Sati, Samadhi and Upekkha in one way or another. From Sila to Samadhi, all are regarded as Cerana that includes vegetarianism. However, if the Cerana is not right Panna may not be obtained. Even when one practises with the right Cerana, Dhutangha and with extreme effort enlightenment may not be obtained if one does not put the mind to Nibbana at all times (Pahitattaw). I do not know of the Arahat that you have mentioned, but I know of a later-day Arahat that practised Dhutangha. The late Vebu Sayadaw had practised the Dhutangha that you have mentioned. He also encouraged the Yogis to practise it and he claimed that if one practised it in a right way enlightenment was ensured within 7 days of the practice. With Metta Tin Htut

       Dear Myanmarman, Thank you for the information. There is also a section in the Milinda-panha where venerable Nagasena explains the advantages of monks taking on Dhutanga. And the Visuddhismagga also elaborates. They are obviously valuable to those who take them on in the right way. I was especially wondering how they can be applied in the correct way? Robert

Subject: Do Monks Live Longer?

       Dear Friends,

       I have been thinking for sometimes whether our Venerable monks do live longer lives. I noticed that many famous members of the Sangha passed away years after they passed their 80th birth days. Examples:

Shwe Hin Tha Sayadawgyi from Myanmar (State Awada Cariya) - 103 years

Sayaday U Thittila from Myanmar (Sangha Maha Nayaka) - 100 years

Mingun Sayadaw U Vicittasarabhivamsa(Abhidhaja Maharatthaguru)-81 years

Current Chairman of the State Mahasanghanayaka Committee, Bhaddanta Sobhita is nearly 90 years old now.

       If this observation is true, it will provide useful information for all of us. Time seems to be more and more precious as we grow older. We do need more time for more dana, Sila and Bhavana. Is it essential to adopt their life style completely? i.e, surrendering many things we enjoy as lay persons, such as: Eating whenever we wish, Sleeping for longer than 6 hours a day, Having Sexual partner(s), Consuming Alcoholic drinks, Always thinking or worrying about making money to survive or to get richer, Having emotional outbursts from time to time, and Not meditating nor practising Buddhist Teachings regularly, etc., etc. May I have your views please! Myanmarman in his 50s

       Dear Friends,

       Dear Dhamma Friend, As the physical body depends upon four factors which are Kamma, environment (Utu), norishment and mind (Cetta) the longevity will also depend on these factors. If you analyse the Sayadaws' life styles you may come across at least two factors which are far more better than a lay person's way of living. All Sayadaws eat only one meal which is far healthier and do not take alchohol. Their mind is more serene then us and if they meditate regularly it can help reduce stress, hypertension and may also prevent ischaemic heart disease (see the effects of meditation on the body in this web site 18/09/99).

       The environmental factor may also contribute to a healthier life if the Sayadaws live in a peaceful surroundings and with plenty of fresh air. The Kammaza Rupa will be far better than lay people for they have lived a moral life and may have been better also in the previous life (one needs a parami to be a monk for life). Therefore, it is not supprising that monks who live according to the Vinaya live longer than lay people in general. With metta Tin Htut

       It is probably a little statistically suspect to generalize based on such a short sampling- but I think it is broadly true that living the buddhsit life promotes longevity. In the buddha's time there were monks who lived to be 160years old- there were also some arahant monks who died at 40 years old. As Dr. Tin Htut noted the conditions include kamma and citta as well as physical conditions such as food intake. Someone could be very pure of mind in this life but die young because of the result of kamma in past lives. Another could usually have akusala(unskillful) cittas but die old because of the strenght of good kamma from past lives. But if anyone cultivates kusala (skillful mindstates) this will tend towards a longer and healthier life. But not always - consider a very honest person who refuses to take bribes and so on . They live in poverty, cannot afford medicines and hence might die young whereas another is corrupt gets a lot of money and uses this to prolong life.

        Kamma is so complex and the results can take aeons before they have the opportunity to arise. Laypeople also live long lives. In Thailand I went with my Buddhist friend to visit a man in hospital. He was 94years old. When we got there I was surprised by how emaciated he was. His face looked almost like a skull. Yet his skin glowed and he seemed so relaxed. I was introduced and he was very pleased to hear that I studied Buddhism . He slowly put his hands together and said in a very strong voice "anumodana" (i respect your good deed). My buddhist friend and him then conversed about Dhamma for about thirty minutes. The topic was the 5 khandas(aggregates) and anatta(not-self). He had a wonderful understanding of Dhamma. A few days later he died. Before he retired he had been a General in the Thai army. He studied Abhidhamma and he valued the development of satipatthana vipassana in daily life. Robert

       Arahats do not want to live long as they know very well that the burden of having the physical body is heavy. They just live long enough to fulfil their objectives (to help others). If they wish they can stay alive for an extended period. Living a long life does not necessarily be productive if one leads a bad life. The Buddha said that it was better to live a day with Sila, Samadhi and Bhavana than to live hundred years with misery and immorality. We do not need to live long to do the Buddhist practice, but to have the Samvega (realisation), the will and effort to practise it without procastination. With Metta, Tin Htut

       Dear Dr. Tin Htut, I appreciate your encouragement "the will and the effort to practise it without procrastination". It is very true that great emphasis is placed on effort in the scriptures. But effort is a cetasika (mental factor) that arises with both kusala (wholesome)and akusala (unwholesome). I know when I started to learn about Buddhism I put in great (almost heroic) effort- but got nowhere. All the effort - to be calm, to get wisdom, to have "experiences"- was all done with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) self view (atta).

       After I studied more I found that the Buddha actually placed prime importance on understanding: on seeing that all phenomena, even panna(wisdom) and sati(mindfulness) are conditioned phenomena. They cannot be manufactured just by dint of will. They will develop if there are the right conditions and can't if there are not. You probably know the Ogha sutta(the flood) (I can't remember where it is in the Tipitaka.) In it the Buddha said he crossed the flood(of samsara) by not struggling and not tarrying. I agree that the aim is not to live long. Robert

Always been shy

       I've always been shy, and I want to not be. Is there any type of meditation I could do that would make me more outgoing, and talkative. I might take an antidepressant that is supposed to cure social anziety. Would you recomend taking a medicine, or trying to solve the problem another way.

       Dear Dan, Shyness, I suppose, has some connection with self confidence. Meditation will be helpful if you practise it seriously. I would imagine you need to do Cetanupassana, that is mindfulness of thoughts. Firstly, try to build concentration of mind by contemplating on the breath. Of course, you will need to keep the five precepts before you practise meditation. When concentration is developed, try to be mindful of all your thoughts. You do not need to get rid of your thoughts, but must be mindful of the present moment. When you become mindful that you are thinking, the thought will disappear at least for a moment. Then, they may reappear and try to be mindful again on what you are thinking. You must not be absorbed in your thoughts or react to any of them. Just try to be mindful of what you are doing at the present moment. Do not cling to any thoughts and eventually, you will understand that thoughts come and go. The mind changes very rapidly and so does the body. If you realise that nothing is permanent and do not cling to anything, you will develop self confidence and your shyness will disappear.

       I hope this information will be helpful. I do not recommend you to take any medication or psychotherapy. Meditation is the best tool and try it first. I wish you the best. With Metta Tin Htut

       It would be helpful to look within yourself to see if you are noting shyness or anxiety/fear. One way to look at that is whether you avoid situations because of fear or extreme anxiety. The avoidance would be a sign of social anxiety and possibly phobia. Medication can help that, but also psychotherapy. Courses designed to help with people skills such as the Dale Carnegie course can also be very helpful in building confidence. We are all different. I tend to be shy in groups but more outgoing 1-1. I'm comfortable and enjoy being this way. Speaking less makes right speech easier, imo. Metta, Jerry

       Dear Dan, I think any way you find helpful (even medicines) may be worthwhile. But if you want to cut through not only shyness but the very roots of suffering, then the Buddhist path is for you. One of the reasons for shyness is our innate belief in a permanent self.Because of this deeply seated belief we react to all the different problems in life. Buddhism has many teachings that help us develop our character in different wholesome ways. But the deepest aspects of the Dhamma explain that the idea of a self is a delusion - that in reality (as Dr. Tin Htut wrote)there are only rapidly changing moments of mind (nama) and matter(rupa). These momentary phenomena arise because of various conditions (paccaya) - which are explained in the Abhidhamma Pitaka a section of the Buddhist cannon. It is understanding of conditions , first in theory and later by direct experience, that gradually eradicates the view of a permanent self. It is sometimes thought that one should be calm first and then develop understanding; but actually the satipatthana sutta (the sutta which describes the objects suitable for direct insight) includes even unwholesome phenomena such as boredom, anger, fear and lust. When these unwholesome states can be seen as they really are, as merely conditioned moments, then they can be understood. It perhaps goes to far to say that we should encourage fear or depression or shyness. But especially if we habitually try to avoid facing such unpleasant realities then we may need to make extra effort to understand them. The more they are seen as they are – as conditioned phenomena , just like any other dhamma (reality, phenomenon), the less they disturb us. If we learn from them they are no longer enemies they are friends. The more often they arise the more we learn from them.

       The main point is that any dhamma is just a dhamma. It arises because it has to arise (there is no self who can control conditions). It can be understood. Of cause it is not just a matter of deciding to “face up to fear or aversion or shyness or depression”- that is Self. It depends on conditions whether such insight will arise, but by understanding that any dhamma is merely an evanescent phenomenon, and that it can be insighted then this is a supporting condition for awareness of these realities. The main supporting condition for insight is the Buddhist teachings, the Dhamma. There are many books on Buddhism, by many different writers, but my recommendation is to study the original words in the Tipitaka. The ancient commentaries are also very reliable. Translations are available from the Pali Text Society in London. There is so much to learn, to understand, about the nature of realities, in theory and by direct experience. It is so interesting, even exciting but also very gradual - it takes more than one life. With metta Robert

Subject: Adhamma Dana

       Offering money (notes and coins) to the monks is believed to be demeritorious according to many eminent Myanmar monks. If a monk receives gold, silver or any form of money, he breaks the Vinaya rule and will probably go to hell after death. So if we hand over envelopes containg money to the monks, not accompanied by lay stewards, we are putting the samsaric fate of the monks at risk, especially when the monks fail to make amends, acknowledging this offence. So we may be driving these Venerable monks to apaya (hell) unknowingly. Will it also generate evil kamma if we repeatedly make cash donations to the monks?

I think for the kamma to be effective VOLITION is the name of the game.what is your intention when doing this act will result in either negative or positive kamma.so if you give money in a envelope with or without the kappiya, whats in your heart is more important.surely you do not part with your money wishing for the recieving sanga to wish him other than good intentions.

       Dear Dhamma Friends, I agree with Ven. Bhikku Pesala that offering money to Sanga directly is not a proper way of making a donation. It is against the rule of the Order. Formerly, only the four necessaties were offered to the Sangas, but the rule has been breached during the times of King Mindon when the courtesans began offering currencies and gold to the Sanga. These items are regarded as acceptable when a lay person handles them, but is it still practicable in this part of the world?

       Situations have changed substantially since the times of the Buddha, and does certain rules have to be laxed to suit the circumstances? A Sangha who is propagating Dhamma in a society in which Buddhist practices are not a customary may have to forfeit certain minor rules. For instance, the late Ven. Thittila had to take meals which was not offered to him during the War, had to stay under one roof with female laities, etc. These things could not be strictly adhered to in those times I suppose. Is it proper to donate a cheque instead of notes when no lay person is present to accept the gift? A Sangha may still need financial support to live in this society, for instance to pay for the tuition fees for a post graduate degree. In the context of killing to offer a meal to Sanghas, I think this is not right. This may not seem to have an implication in this part of the world for nobody will slaughter an animal to prepare a meal, but what about frying an egg? If the egg is a free range product it can be fertilised and preparing a meal with eggs can be demeritorious. The late Mahasi Sayadaw did not take eggs for this reason! With Metta

       Hi. I'd like to comment on the interesting discussion about giving to monks. Will it generate evil kamma if we repeatedly make cash donations to the monks? Someone commented that it depends on intention. Perhaps we can consider money as poison to monks - certainly if they accept it is a very serious breach of discipline that will bring unpleasant results to them. For the layperson who knows that it is against vinaya for monks to accept money then they are also at fault .If I give poison to someone -which is what money is to monks -is it really a gift? If a layperson truly knows nothing about this rule then the giving can be motivated by kusala citta .

       I do not agree with Dr. Tin Htut's arguments that we could offer cheques (or give credit cards) it is clearly going against the intention of the rule against money. There have always been many in favor of relaxing the rules but I admire the arahants at the first council who said they would not change any of the rules , no matter how minor , out of respect for the Buddha and because they were not sure which rules could be changed. Do we think we really know more than these arahants? Are we sure that the Buddha intended for us to alter the rules to suit our own wishes or the wishes of some monks?-If we are not sure then our duty as laypeople is to assist monks to keep all the rules and to support those monks who do strictly keep the vineyya and who strictly follow the teachings. By the way I believe almost all free range eggs we see in supermarkets are unfertilized. The "free range" is not as free as it sounds.

       Dear Robert, Thanks for your remarks. May I remind you that I did not suggest to change any rules of the Vinaya, but to consider if some could be relaxed according to circumstances. Anyway, there are 227 rules and a breach of most of the rules can be forgiven if confessed except for the Parajika. It is a fact that most of the rules have been broken repeatedly by some Sanghas and it will lead them to a rebirth in Apaya. They say that Sanghas have a higher chance to land in Apaya than laities and this may be the reason. We all have been donating Sanghas with either cash or cheques in the past without being aware that it could be a de-meritorous deed. We should be more cautious in future.

        However, we must also consider that Sanghas do need support and we must think of a way to do it without harming anybody. Does anyone has a suggestion? Will it be better to donate directly to a trust or any organisation who are taking care of the Sanghas? I take a full vegetarian diet on Saturdays which is the day I was born. I do it as a small renunciation to help animals live a longer life as possible by not eating meat or eggs. If you are certain that eggs in supermarkets are not fertilised it may be much easier to keep my Sila. With Metta

       May I forward this short communication from a Mahasi-trained Australian Monk to all our dhamma colleagues? He wrote: "As soon as monks get money, they're in trouble. Even us, money is kept for us and sometimes we think 'What shall I do with it?' AAAHH DUKKHA!!! Leave it alone, let it go and live in peace, I say to myself. Even SOME Sayadaws "collects" money (with due respects). Monks say, "Without money how can I travel to teach Dhamma? How can I build hospitals and monasteries?" etc. etc. Answer...... DON'T! Once you do, you're attached! Attachment, monks, is bondage;non-attachment is FREEDOM. ~ Buddha. The truth gets slapped in our face all day long and we ignore it and follow our whims and aversions, our delusion. Oh when will we be wise? Really wise? Here in these emails, I'm not slandering our great Sayadaws nor accusing them of misdeeds, they are worthy of respect and greater than I probably will ever be. I too have my faults and misgivings and have a LOT of work to do. May all Sanghas flourish in the Buddha's way! And may all followers of the Triple Gems have their Noble wishes fulfilled!" Yours in the Dhamma,

       In the Milindapanha, King Milinda asked why , if the body is not dear to the Venerable Nagasena (or any other monks) he looks after it. Nagasena explained that it is necessary for as to do so were we to have the chance of reaching nibbana, just like if we are injured, we treat the wound not because it is dear to us, but because it is necessary so as to let the flesh grow again. In the same way, I see no potential problem (if the Sangha is not corrupt) of money offering, since in samsara money is a necessary means of survival and can aid in the missionary works of the Sangha so that many more can escape from this world of illusion and suffering Sergio

       I too agree that monks should not take the Vianya lightly. Slackness in the Vinaya actually spells the decline of the Sasana.

       Dear Robert, Thanks for your reply. Regarding the Vinaya we cannot possibly make the Sanghas keep to the rules as most Sanghas are not Ariyas (enlightened ones) and they will have all the mundane temptations as ourselves. The sheer number of Sanghas make this effort quite impossible. As you may gather there are three categories in the Order, Pariyatti (learning and propagation of the Dhamma), Paripatti (cleansing of mind and body), and Pariveda (fruitition of the former effort). Most of the Sanghas will belong to the first category and they are the difficult ones to keep to the rules. We need to support them as well as they are the majority of the groups who have conserved the Sarsana during the hard times. They learnt the Pitaka by heart and recited them daily when there was no fascility to put them on record. You may argue that we have enough fascilities to preserve the Patika now, and may not require to support such Sanghas. We never know for sure what lies ahead, do we? We need to encourage all types of Sangha to make sure that the Sarsana survives. So, to quote a phrase from the scriptures, "Sabe sata kamma saga" everybody has to go according to his or her Kamma.

       The Sanghas know very well about the consequences of breaking the rules, but the Avijja and Tanha have blinded them. They will never come to understand unless they start the cleansing process (Visuddhi) themselves. Converts are usually egar in the practice and try to be a perfectionist. I beleive that is a good thing to come to a realisation and start the cleansing. We need ourselves to be perfect first before trying to make others perfect. Regarding the issue of being a vegetarian, the concept that I have mentioned earlier was born during the times of the Buddha, and I beleive they must be the words of the Buddha himself. Buddha did not command anyone to be a vegetarian, but did not object if anyone wanted to be one. The objective of being one was to help the animals live a longer life. The volition is important rather than the consequences of being a vegetarian on animal welfare. The consequences, however, might be substantial during those days, but may not be effective now as you have argued.

       As mentioned earlier, things have changed a lot since the Buddha made the rules. The rules were laid in sequence as the issue emerged, but not in a formal ready-made law. They were done to make the Order flawless in the eyes of the public who supported them. The Sanghas needed the support of the public to help them practice the Dhamma. May you be free of Vicikiccha.
With Metta

Right Method of Meditation

       Dear Dhamma Friends, I am posting to you a file that contains a chart to help you choose the right method for meditation. Please have a go and see for yourself it it works. If there is any query do let me know. Thanks!
With Metta
Attached: chara.htm

Getting Started!

       Hello.
       My name is Anthony Olson and I have been living a very simplified lifestyle for the past 2 years. I have always been interested in Buddhism but have only studied it academically. I have recently made the decision to adopt the buddhist philosophy and lifestyle. I am anxious to hear any suggestions for a "newbie" who wishes to get started. Two areas that I am having trouble with,
       1. Could you help with ways I can purify my mind.
       2. Could you help me with suggestions for a well rounded buddhist "diet".
What are some ways I can simplify my life in those 2 ways.
Thank you in advance.

       Start meditation in a simple way. Be conscious of your breathing and concentrate on it. At first you will find your mind wondering soon. Even a few seconds of concentration is enough to start with. Every time you do or think try to analyse the roots of you thoughts whether based on craving, ill will( anger) or delusion. Driving is the best time. When you get angry, bored or impatient analyse your thought. In short watch over your mind. Gradually you will find that your thoughts become clear and pure. Do not try to be a strict vegetarian. Start thinking every time you eat flesh that it is a result of a living being harmed. You need to be on vitamins and variety of pulses to supply enough food material to be healthy. Middle way is the best. Remember you cannot attain enlightenment over night. It takes a lot of practice over several lives. If you expect instant Nibbana you will be disappointed.
       Blessings of the Triple Gem