A Short Thank You From a Traveling Monk

I am in the middle of traveling, first to my home temple where I was ordained and then up to the Loas border where I will do some writing, so I was unable to post a blog yesterday. Posts will be less than usual for a week or so as I will be either on the road or doing intensive academic writing for a journal I hope to publish in. In my travels, I am always reminded of the early Sangha, and the Buddha himself, and their life on the road. Many of the monks depicted in the Pali Canon did not have a permanent home and would wander Northern India either teaching, following the Buddha, or in isolation meditating. Not that my travels are anywhere near as extreme as those of the Buddha's, but sleeping in different places every night and eating from different tables always leaves me nostalgic for the stories I learned as a young child; picturing Prince Siddhartha leaving his lush palace filled with pleasures and comforts only to cut his hair, put on a robe, and wander the forest in search of a truth beyond this mundane world. Even after becoming enlightened, the Buddha would not stay in one place for very long as he would walk around the countryside training new disciples and teaching the people of India, whether they be poor beggars or rich kings.

While the Buddha, and the early Sangha, did remain active in the cities and towns of Northern India through teaching, going for alms rounds, or just traveling through and sleeping at a room provided by a lay devotee, they still separated themselves from the society that populated these centers, and the culture of the area itself. These monks and nuns were both of and not of the community in a very delicate relationship between those that have gone forth, to live the Buddha's teachings, and those that stayed within the social norms of the time. The Buddha required monks and nuns to beg for their food, to never ask directly, and to always take what was given with deep appreciation and gratitude. It is against the rules for a monk or nun to prepare their own meals or to even take food that is already prepared without it being offered by a lay person. This is a remarkable rule the Buddha laid down for the benefit of both the Sangha and the lay devotees as it keeps the two connected where the necessities of life are concerned. No matter how isolated, no matter how far one has traveled, a member of the Sangha must beg for their food and be dependent on the lay community for their sustenance. Furthermore, no matter how isolated a monk or nun may be, they are always in contact with those that may require their advice and guidance.

One who has gone forth, one who has broken the shackles of society and has embraced the life of a homeless beggar, one who has devoted one's own life to the teachings of the Dhamma is dedicated to cleansing their own interpretations of the world. Leaving society and concentrating on one's own self without the distractions of the community is a vital step in this process. However, the Buddha made sure that the Sangha would always be dependent on that same society that the members left. This is important, it is actually the Sangha that is wholly dependent on the lay community, not the other way around. The teachings are there if people want them, but humanity is not dependent on them. There have been many past Buddhas and between each one of them there have been uncountable years of existence without the teachings of the Dhamma. The human race has lived far more years without the Dhamma than it has with it. In order for the teachings to stay alive, the Sangha must be supported by the lay community. The Buddha envisioned an interconnection, one which provides livelihood of bodily nutrient and one that provides the nutrient of the Dhamma. But the Sangha must never forget that, while we are the pillars of morality and justice for many, the society is the pillars for our very existence.

 As a member of this Sangha, with humbleness and apologies for our imperfections and flaws, I am deeply and sincerely grateful to this very society that keeps me, and the whole Sangha, functioning, I owe you more than I could ever repay. You are with me as a travel this beautiful country of Thailand, you are with me when I'm hungry, you are with me when I'm sick.

My appreciation is far deeper than I could ever express, so I will just say thank you-

Thank you for supporting me and keeping me alive.

The Buddha and the Truths He Taught

The Buddha instructed his disciples, and those who had not yet decided whether or not to follow him, to question the teachings. He said to be sure that the teacher and the teachings are the correct path before giving one's self over to them. The emphases the Buddha put on investigating the truth and not just blindly following his instructions shows how much he wanted people to be sure of the Dhamma, to learn the Dhamma, to live the Dhamma. He did not want people to just participate in these lessons of existence without actually believing in them. This is a level of investigation that the Buddha not only recommends to his students, but implores to the whole world. It is a wonderful quality of his teachings. However, there seems to be a little confusion regarding this particular trait of the Buddha's instruction, and it appears some people think the Buddha actually meant for there to be followers of the Dhamma while not believing in the actual Dhamma as an absolute structure of reality itself and how one should act within this reality (that being constructs of ontology and ethics) or that he himself, the Thathāgatha, the self-realized fully awakened one, was not the greatest teacher of the actual truth of existence (in this particular age of this particular world cycle). This is a misunderstanding to be sure. The Buddha most certainly wanted people to believe in his teachings, for themselves, from conviction and determination that the teachings were actually true. What he did not want, was people believing in the teachings without any meaning behind that belief, an empty faith that amounted to nothing but following a herd. This, however, in no way implies that the Buddha thought people could make their own arbitrary belief systems and be on a path to liberation. It also does not imply that the Buddha wanted people to believe in the Dhamma yet somehow think the Dhamma was not an absolute structure of reality.

One argument I seem to hear is that the Four Noble Truths, and other teachings, are open to interpretation. While I may not agree with that totally, I can certainly agree with the idea that the Four Noble Truths are conceptualized differently for each person. What I don't see, is how this makes the Four Noble Truths itself, as the Buddha taught it, a mundane structure that is not universal to the Dhamma. He certainly would not want someone to not believe in the Nobel Truths, this would not be a follower of the Dhamma in his eyes. The fact that people may hold the Truths differently than others does not make them any less of a teaching that is required. They are called the Truths for a reason. They are taught, by the Buddha, as absolute Truths of reality, ones in which a person must understand in order to progress towards liberation. This doesn't mean everyone must understand them the same way, the Buddha never suggested that. He was well aware that people thought differently and held concepts in personal ways that can not be compared to others. This is why he would give different teachings to different people, depending on their need and ability. However, the Truths are still the Truths. They are not the Maybe's, or the If You Understand's, or the Only If You Feel Like Believing's, they are absolute qualities of existence, according to the Buddha's teachings.

In the Alagadupama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha compares his teachings to a raft. He said that the lessons he gives of the Dhamma should be used like a raft going from one shore to the other. At the other shore, the raft would be discarded. This famous simile is discussing the difference between mundane reality (the shore of departure) and absolute reality (the shore of arrival) and the means in which to get there, the teachings of the Buddha, which is only given in conventional language and must be discarded once one realizes the absolute Truth. There is most certainly absolutes as taught by the Buddha, and in order to even begin to understand these absolute constructs one must believe in the teachings. But belief is not enough, one must hold these teachings as truth through faith and conviction, one must come to this decision of belief on their own with great determination. The famous teachings of the Kālāma Sutta are lessons in how to do that, you can read my explanation for this here.

There are many times the Buddha called for people to not only question the teachings, but to question the validity of the Buddha himself. The Vīmaṃsaka Sutta is a discourse given to his disciples teaching them to question his own authority and knowledge. However, again, this did not mean that one could still be a follower of the teachings, yet not believe that the teachings were of Truths beyond language and conception, Truths that are absolute, according to the Buddha.

The Buddha after telling his students to question his own validity-

“Bhikkhus, when anyone‟s faith has been planted, rooted, and established in the Tathagata through these reasons, terms, and phrases, his faith is said to be supported by reasons, rooted in vision, firm; it is invincible by any recluse or brahmin or god or Mara or Brahma or by anyone in the world. That is how, bhikkhus, there is an investigation of the Tathagata in accordance with the Dhamma, and that is how the Tathagata is well investigated in accordance with the Dhamma.”


Faith must be ROOTED, must be ESTABLISHED. The Buddha was talking of conviction through questioning, not a chronic state of doubt concerning what he actually taught, a chronic state that one would be comfortable with, this would not be considered a follower of the teachings by the Buddha (this doubt is actually an unwholesome quality of consciousness, yes, a quality of consciousness that is unwholesome absolutely, called vicikicchā in Pāli). He said to "be a refuge on to yourself" in the Mahaparinabbana Sutta, not so that you create your own truths arbitrarily, but that you create your own truths fully ROOTED in those that the Buddha is teaching. Truths beyond the actual teaching that one must have faith in. This statement of his to "Be your own refuge" does not mean to create your own truths, it means to "be your own refuge" within the triple refuge of the Teachings: The Dhamma, which is absolute- The Buddha, self-realized fully and awakened one that brought the teachings of the absolute to mundane reality through language- and the Sangha, the warriors of the Buddha who keep the flame of the teachings alive.

There are different interpretations as people understand the teaching differently, no doubt. People hold the teachings in different ways, of course. People live the teachings in their own capacity, I completely agree. But in order for a group of people to have different interpretations, to understand something in their own way, implies a greater structure that they are interpreting FROM. There must be an overarching construct that which people understand in their own way FROM. Just saying people believe in the Noble Truths differently does not mean that there is not a unified belief system within Buddhism. In fact, saying that implies there MUST be a unified belief system, otherwise there would be nothing from which to reference these differences.

I am not against a more modern interpretation of the Dhamma. I am not even against people taking some parts of the Buddha's teachings and leaving out the supernatural essence of the teachings. Following an ancient existentialism that promotes compassion and wisdom sounds like a wonderful path. What seems to be a problem though, are attempts at proof, not very coherent ones, that the Buddha himself was not teaching a belief structure that was universal, or that he would tolerate someone claiming to be his devout follower without attending to his lessons.

The Buddha could be very strict, many times he admonished his students for not following the rules or observing the teachings.

The Catuma Sutta-

The Blessed One addressed the venerable Ananda thus: “Ananda, who are these loud noisy people? One would think they were fishermen hawking fish.” 

“Venerable sir, they are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And while the visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away their bowls and outer robes, they have been very loud and noisy.” 

 “Then, Ananda, tell those bhikkhus in my name that the Teacher calls the venerable ones.” 

“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to those bhikkhus and told them: “The Teacher calls the venerable ones.” 

“Yes, friend,” they replied, and they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. When they had done so, the Blessed One asked them: “Bhikkhus, why are you so loud and noisy? One would think you were fishermen hawking fish.” 

“Venerable sir, we are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And it was while we visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away our bowls and outer robes, that we were very loud and noisy.” 

“Go, bhikkhus, I dismiss you. You cannot live with me.”

Trying to manipulate the actual words of the Buddha to somehow fit an individualistic modern mind-set where everyone can do as they please as long as they believe they are being compassionate is not healthy for anyone. It is misinterpreting the actual teachings, it is infringing upon tradition, and it is an outward attempt to validate individuality via a teaching while trying to appear nonchalant about teachings. If the consensus is that the Buddha taught people to come up with their own belief systems arbitrarily, solidifying people's belief that one did not need absolute truths or teachings in the first place, why then do people care so much about what the Buddha taught? Why search for teachings of a structure that verifies the need for no teachings of a structure? Again, a modern interpretation of Buddhism is not an issue for me, I actually think that it can be a very good thing. However, understanding what the Buddha actually taught and what context he taught it in is paramount. Otherwise, we are just creating our own truths, and if that is all we are doing, why look towards the Buddha at all?

Meditation Throughout the Ages- Where Husserl and the Buddha Agreed

Vipassanā meditation, a very popular form of Buddhist meditation in this present day, is surprising similar to phenomenological mediation, especially that of Edmund Husserl's Epoché. Though separated by millennia, one can see that the Buddha and Edmund Husserl were manipulating consciousness in much the same way when practicing introspection. A comparison can be made between the two, but first one must understand the history of Vipassanā mediation and how it has become so popular.

The Buddha did not actually ever speak of Vipassanā meditation in his teachings though he did use the word Vipassanā sparingly. The context of this word was to explain a sense of seeing reality or deep insight, but he did not use it in the context of meditation. The Buddha would speak of Jhana and concentration in regards to the actual act of meditation, but never Vipasanā. The very few times the Buddha described the exact moment of enlightenment within meditation, such as the Bhaya-bherava Sutta and the Maha-Saccaka Sutta both in the Majjima Nikaya, the Buddha talked about being in Jhana, but he describes a moment where his mind turns inward and he begins to investigate the mind rather than just being absorbed upon an object. The Buddha also discussed Sati, mindfulness (though awareness is a better definition, that is a conversation for later) and meditation with Sati in the famous teachings of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. This is a teaching of four stages where the practitioner first concentrates on a physical object, the body, and then gradually becomes aware of the consciousness as it is perceiving the body, this is the Sati or awareness. The practitioner first becomes aware of feeling as a separate part of interpretation, then consciousness as a whole. Lastly, the observer becomes aware of the function of interpretation in the fourth and final step.These two teachings, that of his exact moment of enlightenment and that of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, are where the Theravada tradition of Vipasanā was born.

The use of Vipassanā as a form of meditation was not formulated until 800 years after the Buddha when the great Buddhist Scholar Bhandantācariya Buddhaghoṣa wrote the Visuddhimagga, The Path of Purification. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghoṣa talks of two types of meditation, Samadhi, or tranquil meditation, and Vipassanā, or insight meditation. Here Buddhaghoṣa explains that deep concentration that leads to Jhana, with one of the 40 Kammaṭṭhāna objects, is absorption into an object, this is Samadhi. He goes on to explain that examining an object, and the reality that the object exists within, with Sati, is Vipassanā, or insight meditation. Within Vipassanā meditation, the practitioner sees the three characteristics of existence- impermanence, suffering, and non-self. As the meditator progresses down a 16 step path of insight, these are known as the "nanas", one begins to understand these characteristics more and more. That first stage is the separation of mind and object, or the separation of the interpretation of an object and the object itself. This separation requires Sati, it is a process of the mind seeing the mind seeing an object and takes reflexiveness, commonly known as mindfulness, in order to achieve. This was Vipassanā, a meditation of investigation as opposed to the calm and tranquil absorption of Samadhi meditation. 

Jump another 1600 years into the future and we have Ledi Sayādaw who wrote the Vipassanā Dīpanī around 1900. This treatise of Buddhist metaphysics again conveys the importance of separating mind and object, or the interpretation of the object and the object itself. Jump another 50 years into the future and we arrive at Mahāsi Sayādaw, one of the greatest modern monks and my personal hero, his influence on me has been considerable to say the least. Mahāsi Sayādaw developed a particular practice of meditation that emphasizes this separation of the mind and its object. In fixating on the movement of the abdomen when one is breathing, one begins to understand that that movement is outside of the mind as it is making contact with the mind- as the mind perceives an object we interpret an object, but our interpretation and the object are different. He said- the practitioner will see a difference in the movement and the noticing of the movement. Mahāsi Sayādaw developed this teaching through years of meditation, he also had extensive academic training in Buddhist theory. 

This method of rising and falling is the quintessential practice of Vipassanā meditation today, but that does not mean you must focus on the abdomen in order to do Vipassanā, that is a common misunderstanding. Vipassanā is simply becoming aware of the perception of an object, and experiencing one's self experiencing the object, otherwise know as mindfulness.

If one were to study the great phenomenologist Edmund Husserl and his epic guide to consciousness Logical Investigations, one would become familiar with the term Epoché, Husserl's mode of meditation. Part of my life's work in academia will be comparing phenomenological philosophy and the Buddha's teachings and in studying both I have found a significant amount of similarities between Buddhism's Vipassanā and Husserl's  Epoché. Husserl discusses intentionality, and the consciousness intending one object at one time. This object of consciousness is then labeled as an interpretation that we can understand through a process of noema/noesis. The object and the interpretation are different, and the way to separate the two in order to discern the difference is to "bracket" the object- this is taking away all other factors of experience, eg wandering thoughts, other objects that may be visible, sounds, etc. and concentrating upon that object. The mind using Epoché, or"bracketing", then focuses on the one object wherein which the mind becomes reflexive and consciousness can then observe consciousness, It is in this way that Husserl is able to describe the process of interpretation. This reflexiveness is awareness of the experience, or mindfulness, and is strikingly similar to the teachings of Vipassanā meditation. Husserl believed we all lived in a "life world" and that this "life world" was literally nothing but interpretations of the outside world that we understand through conceptions made by our consciousness. This is what the Buddha was talking about when he said mundane reality and absolute reality. Husserl also said that in order for us to understand reality we must understand our interpretations, and in order to do that we must meditate upon that process of interpretation. This is what Mahāsi Sayādaw was teaching when giving lessons on Vipassanā meditation- We can only understand reality when we understand how we view reality. Husserl and Mahāsi Sayādaw, a Jewish mathematician, and a Burmese Theravada monk, not so very different after all.

Faith, Tradition, and Culture- Why Buddhism is a Religon

This post may come off a little opinionated, and I fully admit that I have strong opinions about the subject,  but this is something I have needed to say for awhile. To all my 3 readers, bare with me. I do have a reasonable point, obviously my own opinion, and it's time I shared it with all of you... and you... and you over there in the corner.

A story first, to help illuminate the issue. I have a Burmese friend who posted on facebook that Buddhism was a peaceful religion yesterday, an American then replied to the post and said Buddhism is not a religion but a "way of life". I have so many problems with this reply that I am honestly unsure of what to type next...

Let us just start with my Burmese friend, whose English is very good. She was genuinely confused and asked me if she was missing something. I had to tell her that some westerners don't think Buddhism is a religion. I got the same response I have gotten from many other Asians when saying this, "Why would they think that?" I had to tell her I didn't know. This is an issue that I have been dealing with my whole life. I was raised a Buddhist and went to a Thai temple in America growing up. Of course Buddhism was a religion, this was not even a question. However, about the time I started college, I started coming into contact with many Buddhists my own age. I guess this is the first time I heard the all too common phrase, "Buddhism is not a religion."

I was as confused as my Burmese friend. I would ask, "Why would you say that?" I got several responses, none very coherent. I got responses that the Buddha said he didn't want his teachings to become a religion. I am very sorry to anyone that thinks the Buddha said this, he did not. In fact, he set up the Sangha quite similar to any religion to go out and teach people so that his teachings would survive long after he died. He envisioned his teachings to last well over 1000 years, as a structured belief system, eg four noble truths, eightfold path.

I got responses like- you don't need faith to believe in the Buddha's teachings. I am sorry again, I deeply apologize for ruining your day, you do, in fact, require faith in order to believe the Buddha's teachings. I can already picture people reading this and disagreeing, the Kālāma Sutta ready at hand as they formulate an argument. The Kālāma Sutta is one of the most misunderstood suttas in the Pali Canon, it is actually a lesson on faith, you can read my post about the subject here. Saddhā is one of the defining factors of a wholesome consciousness, it is also one of the 5 powers and 5 factors for a wholesome existence within the Dhamma. The Buddha discusses Saddhā at length several times throughout the Tipitaka as a necessary quality of anyone hoping to be liberated. Saddhā is Pali for faith, yes, faith. Some translators have tried to translate it as conviction, however, the most accepted translations are faith. I suspect that the attempt, and not a very convincing one, to translate Saddhā as conviction was because of this western mentality that religion is bad, and hence, faith must be too. Regardless, the meaning of Saddhā is most assuredly faith.

I got responses like- Buddhism is a science, not a religion. I still hear this argument all the time. I completely agree that Buddhism is a very rational religion with a surprising amount of emphasis on empirical experience. However, that is all done within an overarching structure of reality that requires belief, a reality that one must have faith in. These beliefs include rebirth, kamma, and many others. You can read more about this particular subject here.

Lastly, I got the response that Buddhism doesn't have a god. Here I will concede the point. No, Buddhism does not have a god, and if being a religion means the belief must have a god, then I suppose Buddhism is, in fact, not a religion. However, I don't think that is a concrete definition of religion.

If one were to look up religion in a Dictionary, they would find a belief in the superhuman. While I do believe Buddhism fits this model, the Dhamma is most certainly superhuman, I don't think it is a very good definition of religion.

Religion is a cultural model of faith, tradition and community. Things Buddhism is in abundance of.

One standard definition of religion, used in academia all over the world, is that of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who simply defined it as "a cultural system".

Furthermore, French sociologist Emile Durkheim explains why Buddhism is a religion, "In default of gods, Buddhism admits the existence of sacred things, namely, the fours noble truths and the practices derived from them."

I suspect that much of the West's insistence that Buddhism is not a religion comes from an unsavory view of their own Christian culture. A faulty line of reasoning seems to occur-

Christianity is a religion

Christianity is bad

Therefore, religion is bad.

I have even run into some westerners that think the culture of Buddhism in South East Asia is not real Buddhism! (I have a post on that here).  Excuse me, I really don't see that anyone who is relatively new to the religion, and has probably not read many books on the subject, can possibly say that a whole culture of people is practicing their own religion wrong. A common response to that is- it is not the Buddhism the Buddha would have wanted. Maybe not, though I don't think many of the western people complaining about Asian Buddhism have any idea what kind of Buddhism the Buddha wanted either, and are certainly not in the position to tell cultures that have been Buddhist for more than 1000 years what to believe.

Some people may also claim that religion has done atrocities and is a bad thing in itself. Great point. Absolutely religion has done wrong, much of the world's suffering can be laid at its feet. Every single religion has committed atrocities, including Buddhism. And before I hear another claim that Buddhism is too peaceful to be a religion, please look into its history, the Third Buddhist Council was a slaughter, and into the present day state of Buddhism. The violence and brutality in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and the Southern Thai border are very real things.

Another point I need to make is this idea that if the world had never had religion it would have somehow been more peaceful. Maybe, maybe not. There are no grounds to say this, people can be awful, with or without religion. There is no way to tell if the world would have been better without religion. In saying this, I am in no way excusing religion of its horrors, as a Buddhist monk I carry the weight of what Buddhism has done. I do not act like Buddhism is perfect and pretend terrible things didn't happen. To do so would be a great affront to Buddhism, turning it into a fake plastic construct of perfection. I have too much respect for the religion to even consider such folly.

I guess I will close by saying this, if you don't think Buddhism is a religion and insist on saying it is a "way of life," I have a few questions: What is the difference? Why do you care so much about whether it is or not? and finally, What gives you the authority, expertise or knowledge to say it is not a religion? If one still insists on saying it is not a religion, that is fine, no problem. Just do the whole world and Buddhism a favor, stop correcting other people... especially people that have been born and raised within a Buddhist culture.

Buddha and the Brahmanic Caste System

This is a picture taken after a grueling and intensive two-week meditation retreat. The three nuns are of different schools. From left to right: Won Buddhism, Pure Land, and Medicant. I think the nuns wanted to take this pic and four Theravada monks just decided to "pop" into the picture (including me!).


The Buddha did not just create a new religion, he created a whole ontology of existence, complete with metaphysical details of the duality of  consciousness and its objects, as well as explanations of mundane and ultimate realities. The Buddha created a complete ethical structure in which to judge wholesome and unwholesome deeds within this ontology along with lessons in morality that can lead one down a path to liberation. To say it is a sophisticated philosophy is an understatement, however, as brilliant as the Buddha's mind was for conceptual constructs of actuality, he also  broke down cultural barriers of segregation and ancient traditions of the caste system within his Sangha.

A brief history of the caste system is in order. Before Buddhism, and Hinduism itself, was a cultural identity known as Brahmanism (we will call it a religion for the sake of clarity with the understanding that it was an ancient social phenomenon first). The first scripture of Brahmanism was the great ancient texts of the Veda's (the Vedic tradition is the understructure for many beliefs in Asia. It is paramount to the teachings of several religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism). The first text of the Veda's was the Rigveda, which discussed the creation of the universe.

This explanation is from the Rigveda, however, there are literally 1000's of explanations of how the universe was created from the Vedic tradition. I am not supporting one over the other, nor in any way claiming to be a Vedic scholar. This particular explanation appears to be the first one, as far as the Vedas are concerned and gives an account as to why the universe is structured the way it is, establishing a point of reference that fits the context of this post.

The Rigveda tells of Purusha, the first god of the Vedas, existing in a void, alone and cold. Purusha then created lesser deities in order to worship him. These deities loved Purusha dearly and wanted to give a sacrifice to him (as was the norm for showing devotion in the Vedic tradition). There was nothing that existed except for Purush and the lesser deities, so the deities did the most reasonable thing they could think of, they sacrificed Purusha to Purusha.

This sacrifice IS the universe, the eye is the sun, the breath the wind, the soles of his feet the ground. It was not just the material make up the universe that was created, but man as well. From Purusha came the varnas (the ancient Vedic caste system). From the head came the Brahmin varna, the priests who rule over all and teach the people all things spiritual and academic. From Purusha's arms came the Kshatriya varna, the kings and warriors who protect the people and keep the peace. The legs of Purusha became the Vaishya varna, the farmers and merchants who keep the people supplied with the necessities of life. From Purusha's feet came the lowly Shudra varna, the workers, and slaves, which provided the manpower to run the whole society. This was a division of the male section of the population, the women were either not considered a part of it or as the Shudra varna; even the women of the higher castes were considered lesser pieces to the whole of society.

The Buddha broke these chains, several times declaring that the Brahmins were no better, nor the Shudra no worse than anyone based on birth, lineage or family. One important thing to note here is that in a male dominated society, that was also a caste society, where structure of culture and rigidness of position was the norm, the Buddha openly rejected the thought that one man, or women, was somehow inferior to another in terms of their ability to be liberated.

Many people see the place of nuns within the Buddha's Sangha and think that they were considered lesser to the monks. This is not exactly true. Within the early Sangha, the power structure was monk dominated, however, at no time did the Buddha, or the early Sangha as a whole, say men have a better chance at salvation than a woman does. Many times, in fact, a nun was revered for her progress
and attainment. The Buddha even praised a woman for being amongst his four most spiritually powerful disciples, his cousin and former wife, Bhadda Kaccana; This story is found in the Anguttara Nikaya commentary which is referenced in the wonderful introductory to Theravada Buddhism, The Buddha and his Teachings by Narada Thera.

The Buddha's proclamation that all have an equal chance at liberation was revolutionary. He welcomed slaves to leave their master and join the Sangha, he considered women not only able to be liberated, but most certainly worthy of it and led many down the path of attainment. This was a remarkable change from the social conditions of Brahmanic society. As powerful as the Buddha's teachings were, as brilliant as his insight into consciousness was, his determination to judge people based on their actions, and not on their birth, was not only paramount, it was centuries ahead of its time. The greatest gift the Buddha gave to the world was the teachings of the Dhamma, but let us never forget that within those teachings, lies a remarkable outlook on the worth of a person, one that was in the face of a strict caste system in male dominated society. As the Buddha once said in the Sonadanda Sutta:

It is not one's birth that makes a person great, but their morality and wisdom.

Understanding The Kālāmas- Lessons in Ethics, not Epistemology

I know of no other sutta that is as widely coveted as it is misunderstood, in my humble opinion, than that of the Kālāma Sutta (the Kesamutta Sutta is its official suttanta name). It is the battle cry for modern Buddhists all over the world, pointing to its teaching to validate a form of Buddhism that is individualistic and rational. The common impression of the sutta is that it is a lesson on epistemology, the mode in which we know the truth, however, upon closer examination, I believe this is a lesson about ethics more than the process in which we understand reality.

The sutta in question contains a teaching of the Buddha to the Kālāmas in which he implores them to "know for yourselves" in regards to what is right and what is wrong. It is in this proclamation of the Buddha to "know for yourselves" that many Buddhists cling to when describing the sutta as a lesson for individuality. That may be a hasty interpretation as the sutta explores ethical structures, which I will briefly discuss below, that don't seem to agree with this individualistic explanation.

The passage in question is as follows (I will use Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, as that seems to be the most preferred one amongst those who interpret this sutta as individualistic):

            Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage

            of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical

            reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by

            the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming

            competence [of a speaker], or because you think: 'The ascetic

            is our guru.' But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves:

            'These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy;

            these things are censured by the wise; these things, if accepted

            and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering/ then you should

            abandon them

The Buddha was not asking the Kālāmas to reason out their experience in some modern sense. The idea that this sutta is about discerning what is the truth based on empirical evidence seems to be misleading. The modern interpretation that many modern Buddhists are talking from this sutta is that we should somehow construct reality on past experiences in some form of a method based on induction and prediction, much like the scientific method. However, the Buddha said not to trust logical reasoning, inferential reasoning or by reasoned cognition. In fact, the Buddha is not discussing the truth of reality so much as the ethical nature of reality, what is good and bad:

              But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves:

             These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy

This then becomes a question of what is right and wrong, and this notion of right and wrong appears to have objective qualities, not just a subjective view of what an individual may consider right or wrong. The Buddha goes on to give a lesson of morality towards  the end of the sutta:

            a mind imbued with loving-kindness. . . with a mind imbued with

            compassion;. .with a mind imbued with altruistic joy .. .with a

            mind imbued with equanimity

The Buddha appears to be imploring the Kālāmas to believe objective values of right and wrong for themselves, yet warns against using reason and inference. This implies a sense of meaning and tradition which includes an accepted model of ethical, a model proposed by the Buddha. I suggest that the Buddha is asking the Kālāmas to participate in the culture of Buddhism from an individual foundation of faith. To know what is right and wrong, not from induction or empirical reasoning, but "for yourself".

Another thing people may not realize is that the very next sutta after the  Kālāma Sutta, in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Sālha Sutta, gives the exact same lesson verbatim. However, in this sutta the Buddha goes on to give a lesson of reincarnation and the means to escape rebirth through enlightenment. These lessons to "know for yourselves" are within a context that specifies a particular model of normative ethics; what is right and wrong and how one should act. On closer examination, these lessons may not be so much about one's own common sense, but one's own faith in the objective morality the Buddha teaches.

This modern Buddhist reliance on the Kālāma Sutta seems to point to the need people have for some kind of individualistic and rational choice when deciding on a spiritual path within everyday life. However, this explination may be misguided, as some interpretations of this sutta seem to be biased towards a modern perspective.

Modern Buddhism appears to have a need to define individualism as a virtue, especially in regards to the Kālāma Sutta. Whether or not modern Buddhism, as it exists today, is a good thing for Buddhism is not so much in question as the need it seems to have to verify modern characteristics of society through 2500 year old scripture. The Kālāma Sutta was not a discourse for modern rational thinking, it was not calling people to be more individualistic socially. Rather, it was a teaching on individual belief within the communal tradition of Buddhism. The belief in the Buddha's teachings must be made individually and with determination. This does not mean that the community or the tradition is not important, and it certainly does not mean the teachings are not an intricate part of that decision. It is saying that one should learn from the teacher, participate in the traditions, be a member within the community, and to do all of these things from a decision that one has made on their own; a decision that the Buddha's teachings are true.

This new form of individualistic Buddhism is not necessarily bad for Buddhism in itself. However, the tendency for this type of Buddhism to validate its individualism through ancient doctrine is bad for the religion, Trying to make individualism a virtue is fine. Constructing a modern interpretation of Buddhism is fine. Conceptualizing the teachings from a perception of modern values is fine. However, distorting the teachings and misinterpreting the doctrine in order to validate this form of Buddhism is not only harmful to the individuals, it is harmful to Buddhism as a whole. There is no need to imply the Buddha modeled his teachings around ideals he never held in order to construct a doctrine that agrees more with an individualistic identity. A modern development can be a good thing for Buddhism, but that is what it is, a development. Understanding what the teachings actually mean is necessary for this development though, and not claiming that the modern western construct of the Dhamma is actually what the Buddha was teaching. 

Is Epicurean Minimalism Really Similar to That of the Buddha's?

Epicurious was  Greek philosopher born around 340 BC, which is approximately 40 years after Aristotle was born. The scope of influence Epicurious has had on history, and today's modern world, can not be overstated. Much of the hedonistic ideal is attributed to Epicurus. While Epicurus did not say gods don't exist, he did tell his students to not be afraid, and to live life to its fullest without worry of the divine, for, after death there will be no punishment. However, this lust for pleasure in the present moment does not adequately convey his teachings, he was actually a strong proponent of a simple life and minimalizing pleasure, causing many people to refer to him as an ascetic.

Epicurious also developed an elaborate physical theory based on the atomist philosophy of Democritus, where the physical world is made up of small pieces of matter that can not be broken down anymore known as "atoms". This physical theory is remarkably ahead of its time, accounting for such natural phenomena as gravity and the notion that something can not be created from nothing. Another interesting aspect of his philosophy is his "films" explanation of perception. He suggested that our perception of the outside world is due to thin "films" of the object coming "into" our senses, he then concluded that this is how we get thoughts and ideas. A concept would be a thin "film" of an object entering our mind. He also constructed the first social theory argument, as far as I know, wherein which a society was formed through agreements to not treat people badly if they return the favor. Epicurean theory, though it talks of simplistic living and simple atoms, is not a simple philosophy, the physical aspects along with his description of the empirical senses alone is quite sophisticated, and would require a person to devote one's life to it in order to  master.  That being said, I have some issues with a tendency amongst modern Buddhists to compare Epicurean thought to Buddhism.

The three main arguments I hear that support a similarity between Epicurean thought and Buddhism are these: Firstly, that the materialistic perception of Epicurus and his insistence that something can not come from nothing is somehow equivalent to the Dependent Origination. Secondly, that his suggestion to not fear the gods or punishment after death is similar to the Buddhist idea of a reality existing without a creator god. Thirdly, and this is the most popular, that the minimalist teachings of Epicurious are comparable to those of the Buddha.

I will address these three points briefly and give explanations as to why I think these comparisons are hasty, at best.

First, the extraordinarily elaborate physical theory of Epicurious being similar to the Dependent Origination seems to be a stretch. The point Epicurious was making is that the world is conditioned by material "atoms", and while he believed there was a sense of free will (swerve, as it is called), the whole of reality can be understood by these physical conditions. Physical conditions which are empirically observable and completely in the realm of the material world. Dependent Origination, while a teaching on conditions, really has very little to do with this explanation,  The two main firing points within the round of conditions in the Dependent Origination are the results of past kamma and desire. Neither of these are empirically apparent in the material world. Epicurious's declaration that something does not come from nothing may seem close to the never ending, never beginning cycle of samsara in Buddhism, however, it is an explanation of the physical world, purely in the realm of matter, while the Dependent Origination is a never ending cycle that is held in place by the Dhamma. This aspect of the Dhamma being, natural laws of conditioning that are not empirically testable, such as kamma and rebirth (you can find a more detailed explanation on this in one of my other posts).

Second, that Epicurious's insistence to not fear the gods or worry about punishment after death is similar to the notion that there is no creator god within the belief structure of Buddhism. Ottapa, Pali for fear, is a fundamental quality to the teachings of the Buddha. It is, in actuality, a wholesome factor in own's decision-making to fear the results of one's actions. Ottapa is the fear to be unwholesome and it stems from a fear of doing wrong now because of the results one would face from one's own kamma in this life, and yes, the next life, after death. While Buddhism does not have a creator god, this does not imply that it is similar with Epicurious's belief to not worry about the gods or that there is no punishment after death. The teachings of the Buddha are hinged on repercussions of past actions after death, I don't see how this comparison is valid.

Lastly, the idea that Epicurean minimalism is similar to the minimalism taught by the Buddha. While these two teachings look similar on the surface, they are quite different from the perception of intention (a quality the Buddha held as foundational). Epicurious was interested in the comfort of the senses. He did not advocate indulgence because that would eventually lead to discomfort. Epicurious thought of desire in three ways, natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and empty. It was through minimalizing the unnecessary and completely eradicating the empty that one found comfort in the senses. This is important, he wanted a life of pleasure via the senses, one of joy and ease. This is a drastic difference from the asceticism proclaimed by the Buddha. The minimalist path taught by the Buddha was a means to detach oneself from the senses, not to find a comfortable state within them. According the Buddha, desire itself leads to suffering, one's desire to find this state of comfort that Epicurious advocated would only lead to suffering in the eyes of the Buddha. While both lived, and taught, a minimalist life, the intention behind this life was much different.

To take one of the Buddha's own metaphors, from the Upali Sutta; When one is walking with the intention to cross a path and steps on a beetle unaware, compared to when one steps on a beetle with the intention to step on a beetle. While both acts seem similar, they are quite different. This was one quality of action and livelihood the Buddha was very clear about, intention. So, while Epicurious leads a minimalist life with the intention to attain a state of comfort WITHIN the senses, the Buddha leads a minimalist life with the intention to detach himself FROM the senses. While on the surface these two may seem to share certain qualities, the teachings are rather far apart, and these similarities may not be so similar after all.