This is Not What the Buddha Meant

When the Buddha was very ill and close to leaving this earth (for the last time), he gave several teachings over the course of a few days. One of these teachings was to his secretary Ananda as to what causes earthquakes.

The Buddha was very sick and the evil spirit Mara came to him and urged him to let go of life, that he had done great things and it was time for the final passing away. In actuality, Mara just wanted the Buddha gone from the world so that his teachings would begin to decline. The Buddha told Mara to stop troubling himself, and that his death was imminent. At this point, the Buddha renounced his will to live and there was a great earthquake.

Ananda came to the Buddha and asked why had such a great earthquake occurred. The Buddha told of 8 reasons an earthquake appears:

The first reason was because of natural conditions- I will use the Pali Text Society translation (it is far more widely accepted amongst scholars than the Access to Insight translation in the picture above)-

"The great earth Ananda, is established on water, the water on wind, and the wind rests upon space. And at such a time, Ananda. as the mighty winds blow, the waters are shaken by the mighty winds as they blow, and by the moving water the earth is shaken." (you can see the discrepancy between translations between the picture above and the Pali Text Society, Apo is regularly translated as water, above it is translated as liquid. Vayo is regularly translated as wind, above it is translated as atmosphere).

Both Pali Text Society, Digha Nikaya Vol 2 page 114, and Maurice Walshe, Wisdom Publications, Digha Nikaya, page 247, translate Apo as water and Vayo as wind in this very same explanation of earthquakes given by the Buddha. (Note, these are the two main translations of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, I know of no scholar that would use the translation in the picture above).


The second reason was because a great man or a deva had concentrated on the earth element in meditation.

The third through eighth reasons involved the life of a Buddha from conception to death, including the moment a Buddha renounces his will to live. 

Looking back at the first cause, one must understand this explanation within the context of the time, and from the perception of a culture 2600 years ago. The Buddha was in fact describing the earth (sub-continent of India) as a plate floating on a "pool" of water. This whole "pool" was then surrounded by wind and that wind surrounded by space. You can see in the actual words of the Buddha that this is what he meant. Earth upon water, water upon wind, wind upon space. This does not, in no way, imply earth surrounding lava in a planet and that planet being surround by atmosphere and space in the modern understanding of reality, as the top picture seems to be implying.

Distorting the Buddha's words, or misunderstanding them in order to fit the modern conceptualization of the world is not necessary, and it is quite harmful. It takes away from the insight the Buddha actually had.  The Buddha understood enough, within a culture that thought the very air we breathe is magical and that the growth of plants and trees was supernatural, that earthquakes are caused by natural conditions, first. We need to understand that he was developing these teachings from examination and extraordinary reasoning skills, but he most certainly did not understand the materialistic reality of the universe the way we do now. Saying so diminishes his teachings to a cold, plastic, empty explanation of matter.

It is folly to take a teaching that starts off with natural conditions (from a remarkable understanding of nature at the time) yet continues on with divine reasons for earthquakes as some equivalent to modern science. It seems to be completely missing the point of his lessons and turning the Dhamma into a sterile mode of predicting particulars instead of the teachings of what reality is in itself.

The Spark That Started a Fire

Heraclitus is an ancient  Greek Philosopher from the city of Ionia. He was born approximately 535 BCE, which is about 65 years before Socrates was born. He was one of the last philosophers of the Ionian school, which was the first school of philosophy in ancient Greece.

Ionian philosophers would understand the universe by insisting there was one main element of reality and all of existence is made from that one element. Heraclitus considered fire as the one primary element that all things are derived from.

Heraclitus also believed reality was in a state of chaos and turmoil, and that things were in constant flux. He uttered the famous phrase "No one steps into the same river twice," as an explanation of existence. He believed chaos to by a fundamental part of nature, and so, concluded that the only constant was inconsistency. He called this constant Logos, which means something akin to guidance in this context. He also believed that strife in the face of chaos was justice and that ethics should be understood from within this struggle.

Parmenides was born approximately 20 years after Heraclitus in the city of Elea. He was the first philosopher of the Eleatic school of ancient Greece. He is considered by some to be the father of logic (or the grandfather, as Aristotle holds that title to many) because he was the first philosopher to understand that philosophy depends on proof of argument rather than statements of belief regarding what reality was made of.

Parmenides insisted that change is impossible and that existence is infinite. Reality is, in actuality, one timeless and unchanging being and our perception of movement is a delusion. This philosophy is subtle and difficult, and should not be understood as a simple explanation of the material world, where particulars of existence don't move. Rather, he was talking about existence as a whole. Parmenides was struggling to construct the first ontological system.

In many ways, Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus. You see, the insistence of Heraclitus is important to the works of Parmenides, as it acts as the foundation in which Parmenides questions.

The great Canadian Philosopher David Gallop once said, "Plato's writings are footnotes to Parmenides." And Alfred Whitehead, the giant process philosopher that helped give the world Principia Mathematica, once exclaimed, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

This was the start of it all; Heraclitus making a claim, which was refuted by Parmenides, where in which he made an argument for reality, which was expanded upon by Plato as he constructed his own philosophy of forms, which was then answered to by the whole of European philosophy.

As a devout lover of Parmenides, I disagree with Heraclitus. However, my love for Heraclitus is deep as well, for, without him, Parmenides would have never had a claim to refute.

Issues of Lineage

This is a photo from a seminar at Mahachulalongkorn University held last week concerning the ordination of women. A Theravada monk and a Mahayana nun spoke on the subject. Both sides discussed the problems surrounding this issue and ways to resolve it, whether through full Theravada ordination or other means.


There was some discussion on one of my posts about nuns and why my tradition, Theravada, doesn't have many. It comes down to  the belief (by some) that the lineage of nuns was broken in the Theravada tradition approximately 1,000 years ago.This is an extraordinarily delicate subject, but I will give a very brief history as to what is going on.

There are two main sects of Buddhism in the modern world, Theravada and Mahayana. Mahayana is in actuality several hundreds of sects and many would say that Vajrayana (Tibetan) is not Mahayana. For the sake of clarity, we can say the orthodox sect, that being the Theravada tradition, and the non-orthodox sect, including all other schools of Buddhism.

The lineage of nuns in the non-orthodox sect, for the most part, is not in question. Women can shave their heads, adorn a robe and become a nun without controversy. The Theravada tradition is a little different.

According to some people's interpretation of the orthodox rules, a nun must be ordained by 5 monks and 5 nuns, so there would have to be orthodox nuns present at the ordination. Some explanations of the orthodox sect's history claim that the order of nuns vanished around 1,000 years ago. This means that it is impossible for any new nuns to be ordained, as there are no nuns to ordain them. The lineage of nuns and monks must reach all the way back to the Buddha in order for an ordination to proceed. Note that this applies for monks too, if there were not enough monks to ordain a new monk, the lineage would die.

Other people say that since the non-orthodox nuns have roots in the orthodox tradition, it should be perfectly acceptable to ordain nuns into the orthodox tradition. Now there are many orthodox nuns that have been ordained with the help of non-orthodox nuns. However, the legitimacy of the nuns ordination is in question by some.

This is a very delicate subject not just from a religious perspective, but from a cultural perspective. There are many social issues involved. I am in full agreement with the ordination of women. Some of the greatest warriors of the Buddha have been women, I certainly think the nuns are a necessary and important part of the Sangha. I am, however, reluctant to say what particular traditions in specific countries, having  their own cultural and social constructs, should do.

Buddhism and the Question of Faith and Science

I have come across a surprising amount of conversations regarding faith and science lately, almost all laced with elements of tension if not outright heated arguments. It is difficult to get one's ideas out in such a conversation as both sides have already decided  their position; instead of a consensus of resolution being sought in cooperative effort both sides are just trying to win an argument. One conversation that has become as relevant as it is troublesome for me is whether or not Buddhism is scientific.

I certainly don't have all the answers and am often wrong. In an academic environment, I am proved wrong almost daily. I say this without shame for a few reasons. First, I have just started publishing, 2 conference papers so far, and have much to learn. Secondly, no matter how many papers I publish I will have much to learn. Thirdly, any good academic is proved wrong almost daily. This being said, I have decided to post a quick introduction of my thoughts on the matter regarding Buddhism and science.

This is a very brief look into my thoughts, but I believe it is important that I make this public, as much as possible. One particular conversation prompted me to post this as the tides of patience turned when someone insisted that Buddhism was not only scientific, but a science itself. I had heard this statement before and read a couple papers on it, but never took it very seriously, I will explain why below, but something said in this particular conversation concerned me. It was proposed that, even though some elements of Buddhist belief are not based in science it is still not only scientific but an actual science.

The conversation began as it normally does, someone says Buddhism is scientific, and I respond that some elements are but not all. Sometimes people will agree, sometimes not, I am very used to this conversation as it is quite common. However, this particular one took an unexpected turn when the person agreed that not all elements of Buddhist belief are rooted in the scientific method and then said "Nevertheless it is still a science." I am still unsure how to respond to this statement, but it did serve as the catalyst for this post.

Many people will disagree with what I am going to say, many will agree (though few people read this blog). That being said, I am always open to dialogue. Serious study of what the Buddha said is my life's work, and I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong within intelligent discourse that is attempting to find the truth of the Buddha's words instead of a debate about who is correct.

Instead of responding to the statement, "Even though there are aspects of Buddhist belief that are unscientific, it is still a science", I will respond to the statement, "Buddhism is a science". Again, this is a very brief summary of my views and this post is in no way trying to resolve any issues nor mimic an academic paper. It is just my clumsy attempt at making these views public, as far as this blog is able.

When faced with the statement. "Buddhism is a science", one needs to understand what exactly Buddhism and science are.

Buddhism, though it has a surprising amount of emphasis on empiricism and reason for a religion, is structured around a framework of absolute truth that any believer most hold in order for many teachings to make sense. For brevity, I will use only one example of these absolute truths, rebirth. If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the teachings of kamma and rebirth don't make sense and are at best a myth (though the teachings are very clear that this relation of cause and effect between action and birth is not only essential to the understanding of existence, but an actuality ). If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the idea of nibbana is nonsense. There can be no state of non-rebirth if there is no state of rebirth. If one does not hold that rebirth is true then the idea of past lives is ridiculous. The results of past kamma from past lives being experienced in this present life are dependent upon there being past lives. There are many more examples of these absolute truths the  Buddha builds upon in his teachings, but I will leave those for future discussion.

This is where many people will say that rebirth can be tested by science, if not now, then in the future. Here is my response to that.

Science is a field of study that uses the scientific method. It is a study that leads to a belief in how the world functions and exists based on induction. One critical element of science is that it must always assume that it may be wrong, no matter how insignificant the chances are, science must be prepared to be proven wrong. That means two things, what is tested by science must be falsifiable and the result of the test must never be absolute.

Continuing with reincarnation as the example; rebirth is not presented as a phenomenon that is falsifiable in the teachings. If science were to somehow test rebirth in the future, from a Buddhist perspective, then the premise of the test would be something that exists absolutely and could not be falsified. Another important point is that things that may or may not be tested by science in the future can not be used in an argument as if those things ARE scientific.

Secondly, let's say reincarnation happened to be tested by unbiased scientists and the results were favorable that rebirth is an actuality of existence. These findings would be unusable by Buddhists for proof of their faith as it would be making the findings an absolute truth. Remember, any findings made by science must allow for the chance to be disproven.

This summary of my views is really nothing more than a comparison of what science is and what Buddhism requires a practitioner to hold as truth, and the conclusion is that they are incompatible in many ways. I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have qualities of reason and empiricism,  I have devoted my life to Buddhism in part because of this. What I am saying is that the qualities of reason and empiricism exist within a framework of absolute truths that are foundational for the teachings of the Buddha. The teachings must be understood in relation to these truths. At some point, the practitioner must make a decision from a position of faith that transcends the realm of scientific observation,  and hold these  truths as unfalsifiable and absolute certainties. Yes, I said faith, as I believe the Buddha said as well.

I welcome criticism. I welcome dialogue. I welcome the chance to be proved wrong. What I don't welcome is more debates where cooperation and respect  fall to the waist side and winning an argument becomes more important than an active search for what the Buddha said.

Words Are Empty

What a tragic morning. What a devastating  shock. This hits very close to home, not just as a Buddhist, but as a friend, as I have a few students and colleagues in affected areas. So much damage. So much loss. Holy sites ravaged. 

Words cannot describe.  Words are hollow sounds. Words are empty.

Please keep Nepal in your minds. Whether you are religious or not, whether you pray or not, please keep Nepal in your thoughts.

I will be having 10 minutes of silent contemplation on the top of every hour for 3 days to show support in my own small way. It is so little, so very little, but it is what I can, and will, do. Please join me, if not for 10 minutes then for 1 minute,  if not at the top of every hour, then just once.

Words are so empty.

Strength,  Solidarity, Support.

Nepal will survive.

Full Circle

I am lucky enough to have the Most Venerable Phra Suthithammanuwat Thiab as my Pali Professor at Mahachulalongkorn University. As well as being the dean of the Buddhist Studies Department, Most Venerable Phra Thiab is also a skilled Pali scholar and an expert of linguistics.

Most Venerable Phra Suthithammanuwat Thiab is also a resident monk at the world famous Wat Pho, where American President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited on their trip to Thailand in 2012. Here is a  short video of the visit.

Here I am, with my classmates, next to Most Venerable Phra Suthithammanuwat Thiab after a tiring day of Pali lessons.

Most Venerable Phra Suthithammanuwat Thiab also taught my father  many years ago. I was raised Buddhist by my father and have been close to Mahachulalongkorn University my whole life. The Buddhist temple I went to as a child was Wat Buddhawararam in Denver, Colorado, which is a missionary branch of Mahachulalongkorn University. When I went off to college, my father moved to Bangkok and became a Buddhist Studies lecturer at the university (just as I am now) where Most Venerable Phra Thiab instructed him in Pali as well.

Life... comes full circle.

The World of Sectarian Buddhism

Approximately 100 years after the Buddha's death his followers started separating into sects, which began the age of Sectarian Buddhism; Buddhism before this is referred to as presectarian. 

The first two sects were-

Mahasangani- which eventually led to the Mahayana tradition- Zen, Pure Land, Vajrayana.

Sthavira- which laid the foundation for the Theravada tradition.

This is my graduate class at Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, which is comprised of several sects of Buddhism (as well as a Catholic Priest)  from all over the world. I am incredibly lucky to be immersed in such a rich diversity of culture.

Top row, left to right: Chinese Chan, Burmese Theravada, American Theravada (me), Bangladesh Theravada, Farther Daniele (Catholic Priest from Rome), Bangladesh Theravada, Vietnamese Mendicant, Myanmar Theravada, Vietnamese Theravada.

Back Bottom Row, left to right: Vietnamese Pure Land, German Theravada, Vietnamese Mendicant, Cambodia Theravada, Vietnamese Mendicant.

Front Bottom Row: Our most venerable professors and meditation masters, all Thai Theravada.

Nuns, left to right: Thai Dhamakaya, Korean Won, Vietnamese Mendicant.

The Future Is Right In Front Of Us.

Thai novices in summer training (Thai summer is April-May). These children are being trained in the Theravada tradition of meditation, learning how to develop concentration and ways to sharpen mindfulness from a Thai meditation master.  

 The meditation master instructs the novices to contemplate food before eating. Even though they are hungry from working so hard, they are trained to look at desire and acknowledge it, becoming aware of our motivations and the causes of our action.

A well deserved meal for the future of the Thai Sangha.

Photos by Beyboy Manyou 

Questions of Purity

One of the graduate classes I took last semester was Buddhism in Thailand, which is a course that covered a wide range of subjects, from art and culture to the laws of the constitution (state laws help govern Buddhism in Thailand). At the end of the course, we had a guest speaker who discussed rituals such as funerals, ordinations, and blessing ceremonies.

One such ritual involved statue making. This particular ritual happened to have brahmins present (brahmins are Hindu priests) and the speaker asked me a very interesting question. He said his American friend witnessed one such ritual and declared that there was no pure Buddhism in Thailand, and if I had anything to say about that. I responded that this person didn't know what he was talking about. The speaker seemed taken aback and reassured me that his friend did, in fact, know what he was talking about. This led me to wonder about my response. Was it too harsh? Was there really an issue with the purity of Buddhism in Thailand? At first I thought I had no right to even consider such a thing, but then I remembered that an American said there was no pure Buddhism in Thailand. At the very least, as an American, I could respond to him.

First of all, one must understand that Thailand used to be a culture of animist belief, then it was under the Khmer empire where the religion became Hinduism. Many of these traditions are still relevant today. Not only brahmins being present at rituals. There are many statues that seem to depict Hinduism as well as traditions that have roots in both Hinduism and animism, such as offering gifts to trees. Instead of seeing these cultural norms as a threat to Buddhism, I suggest looking at it is a preservation of  community.

Thailand was the only Theravada Buddhist country that was not colonized, it was also the only one not ravaged by war. Thailand literally gave Buddhism back to Sri Lanka; as Sri Lanka had lost many monks, Thai monks came to help teach novices and ordain new monks. Thai monks also brought copies of the Pali Canon, the scripture of Theravada Buddism, as most had been lost or destroyed. Part of the reason Thailand was such a strong nation for Buddhism may be due to the fact that Thailand was such a strong nation culturally, never forgetting its roots.

This issue demands further study and writing, and this post is in no way an attempt to resolve the issues a statement like that raises. However, as an American responding to an American when confronted with the question of whether or not there is  pure Buddhism in Thailand, I say that this is the wrong question. The right question is whether or not Thai Buddhism is pure. Of course it is. Or rather, as pure as anything else in this world.