The Bhikkhu who radiates loving kindness radiates peace
The Bhikkhu who abides in loving-kindness who is pleased
with the Buddha’s teaching attains to that state of peace
and happiness. The stilling of conditioned things.
Bhikkhu Vagga - The Dhammapada

The Buddha is living

by Ajahn Chah

Let’s please meditate on this subject of our mortality properly, meditate and look into this until we can think more deeply - such as, how is our existence going to change from this moment on? What can we do about it?

Fools cry over death. They don’t cry over birth. But where does death come from? Doesn’t it come from birth? If you cry about people dying, you should cry when people are born as soon as someone is born, start crying immediately: “Oh us, she’s come again! She’s going to die again!”, talk like that it’s more correct that way.

But now we try to use things like magic, prayers, and incantations to ward off death. What’s the point of that? Why don’t we try to solve the problem at the source, which is birth?

This is like a boxer who gets his teeth knocked out and then ducks. You have to duck before they slug you. These things are useless; the Buddha taught about it.

The Buddha taught that, having been born, we should find a path to escape from death.

The Buddha did not die! The Arhants (those who have attained liberation) do not die! They don’t die as people and animals do. When death comes to them, they will be all smiles.

They will be at ease, because they don’t die. This is something people can’t understand. They can’t see it. The Buddha didn’t die.

The Arhants don’t die. Earth, water, fire, air, the four elements simply split up; there is no person in these things. So we say the Enlightened ones don’t die.

They are not born, they do not age, they don’t fall ill, they don’t die. Craving, anger and delusions are not born in them anymore. While they are still living, their bodies are not theirs or themselves.

These are heaps of earth, water, fire and air, and then those things simply break up and disperse. They don’t hold to these being any person in them.

Those things don’t affect them, so we say they don’t die. But we depend on these heaps. We call them a person. We believe them to be ourselves and others, and when they break up we think that we die, and so we suffer. The Enlightened Ones do not suffer over this. Dirt, they call it a pile of dirt! By seeing that there are only earth, water, fire and air, they conquer death.

Sent by:

Chandrasriya de Silva

Playing with the gods

Wes Nisker

gods: One reason I like the Buddha’s teaching so much is that it doesn’t require me to believe in a personified god-an omniscient, all-powerful being who created everything. The Buddha tells us that we can never know the first cause and that it’s fruitless to try to trace our karma back to its origins.

Furthermore, according to the Buddha’s teaching, our rewards and punishments came not from some deity who watches over us handing down judgments but from the laws of cause and effect. Everything that goes around comes around.

In Theravada Buddhist texts, Brahma and other Hindu deities appear now and then, but one gets the sense that they just happen to be hanging out in the Buddha’s neighbourhood.

He doesn’t seem to pay them a lot of heed or obeisance. In fact, in the Pali Canon the gods are usually portrayed as bowing down to Buddha. Even though it was Lord Brahma who supposedly convinced the Buddha to begin teaching, later on in the texts the Buddha can be found teaching the gods themselves.

At one point the Buddha even tells one of his disciples that Brahma must be a little confused if he truly believes that he, Brahma, created everything. According to the Buddha, the gods can’t even become enlightened, because they are simply too infatuated with being gods.

In general, I don’t think much about the gods, except to wonder at how much trouble they cause in the world. The main problem is that people keep killing each other in the name of one god or another, or warring over the holy places where some god supposedly walked or spoke to one prophet or another.

So-called holy wars have been taking place for so many centuries you’d think we would have figured out by now that they aren’t holy at all.

Recent anthropology reveals that there have been hundreds of religions and countless gods and goddesses; that they change over time; and that no one tribe or people seems to have a permanent lock on the true god, or even the true name of God.

Imagine, for instance, a family that’s been living along the shores of the Mediterranean throughout the last five millennia - its generations might have believed in, successively, Chronos, Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah and Jesus.

It seems that even among the gods there is occasional regime change. Meanwhile, the relativity of the gods was noticed way back in the fifth century B.C. by the historian Xenophanes, who wrote, “The Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black, the Thracians that theirs have light blue eyes and red hair.”

Many people say they know for sure who God is, and if you don’t believe in their particular god, they will kill you.

Others won’t kill you but can assure you that when you die, their god will cast you down into a fiery pit where nasty horned creatures will stick you with pitchforks to make you scream in pain, forever and ever. (Imagine, a god would do that to you just for being a nonbeliever.)

But why should we care if people call our god by a different name than we do? Can you imagine any self-respecting god saying, with menace, “Hey buddy, what did you call me?” Why should anyone be bothered if we call our god Omega, Felix or Martha Reeves and the Vandalise? In fact, I can imagine that someday the heavens will open and we will all hear a booming voice proclaim, “Humans! You all got my name wrong!” (Pause) “And I forgive you.”

Maybe God doesn’t even have a name. In fact, there’s a good chance that God isn’t a being at all, or at least not some humanlike being. Do you think we are so good-looking that a god-who could looking like anything, or nothing - would actually want to look like us? Would any god with taste decide to have nose hairs or butt cheeks? “Vanity of vanity”, sayeth the preacher. “All is vanity”.

Even if you don’t believe in one, I would guess that most of you reading this will have a certain image of God- and that He’s an Italian! He’s got a flowing white beard and long hair. I’m referring, of course, to the god who lives up there on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The italians were the ones who gave us this image of God as a buffed charismatic creator with a life-giving finger.

You may remember that the Jews said we are not supposed to make a graven image of “Him” because “He” is much too great and no one could ever gaze on “His” face. (At least we knew that this god was male.) But when the Jewish god came down to meet. His people, He always hid inside a bush or allowed Himself to be heard as a disembodied voice. That was before the Italians inherited the Jewish god and couldn’t resist the urge to paint Him.

(By the way, the Jews really had a brilliant idea with this god that can’t be seen, a god who has no form. It saves a lot of money on statues. No need to put a golden calf on your alter, which might just fall off and break.)

Anyway, I have a proposal for how we can deal with humanity’s god problems. First we call all the gods together for a “summit” meeting. Maybe it could be held on Mt. Olympus or Mt. Kailash, where there are already many gods around who could host the gathering.

(There will have to be separate tables: Bacchus needs wine, but the Buddha won’t touch the stuff; Demeter wants corn for dinner, and Jehovah prefers lamb; Zoroaster wants candles fora centrepiece, while Tor would rather gaze upon an ice sculpture.)

Once we have all the gods together, we beseech them - all of us beseeching our own particular deities - to do humanity a great big favour and decide on a common name. Since I’m the only one working on this project, I will take the liberty to offer the first suggestion.

If you’ll notice, many of the names we already use for deities end in the syllable ah-Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Tara, Diana, Krishna. Perhaps we could get the gods to accept the common nickname Ah. (I haven’t been hit by lighting yet, so maybe I’m onto something here.)

Ah is the first sound most of us make when we are born: “Waaah!” It’s also the last sound we make as we die, crying or sighing, “Ahhh....” With a god named Ah, the fist word of life would automatically become a prayer, and the last would signal our complete surrender and a sigh of release from this hard duty as humans.

I suppose people could still use their special tribal names for God but with extra emphasis on the last ah sound. Then we all could agree that we are talking about the same ultimate almighty. Totally Ah-some!

Another possibility is to name our highest deity Ma, which in almost all human languages refers to mother. Instead of looking up as we pray to “our father who art in heaven,” we would then look down at the Earth, the womb f all life, the goddess whom the Greeks called Gaia. (There’s another ah for you.)

Maybe we could even use both names - Ah and Ma. We could think of God as two, male and female, yin and yang, just as many of us humans have always believed. “Ah Ma! Ma Ah! Ah-ha Ma!” The possibilities for songs and praises are endless.

Of course, my ideas for how to deal with humanity’s good problems will likely not be adopted anytime soon. Until then, I hope you are happy with your god or goddess. Or with your unknown spirit, energy field, Mind, no-god or don’t-known-mind manifestation. The deepest wisdom I can find tells me that when it comes to the great mystery, your guess is as good as mine.

Wes Nisker is a meditation teacher, author and performer

Courtesy: Inquiring Mind , USA.

Theravada Buddhism in ancient and medieval Sri Lanka

Continued from last week

Kamalika Pieris

Sinhala Monks were highly regarded in India. They were praised in an inscription at Nagarjunikonda, dated to 3rd century. Ven. Hiuen Tsang Thera, who was in India in the 7th century, said that the Sinhala Monks “were distinguished in their attitude to moral rules, in their power of abstraction and their wisdom.

Their manners were grave and imposing. Their correct conduct was an example for subsequent ages.” The Tibetan Monk Dharmasvamin, writing around 1234, said the Sri Lankan Monks he met at Buddha Gaya always treated him courteously.

The Sinhala Sangha gradually established themselves as a prominent community at Buddha Gaya. They had started by going there on pilgrimage, usually in groups. The journey from Anuradhapura to Buddha Gaya took about ten or eleven months. Buddha Gaya has a resting place exclusively for them from the 3rd or 4th century.

From the 5th century onwards, the journey to North India was by sea, from Mahatittha to Tamralipti. The journey could be completed in one month and the number of Monks going to Buddha Gaya increased.

In the 6th century, two Sinhala monks one named Ven. Mahanama Thera, constructed a monastery and established a Buddha image at Buddha Gaya. By the 7th century, the resting place had become a Sangarama. It has storeyed halls and six courts with terraces.

An inscription of Lakshmana Sena in 1157 AD speaks of an endowment to Buddha Gaya. This was to be administer by the Sinhala Sangha.

Tibetan Monks Dharmasvamin Thera visited Buddha Gaya between 1234 and 1236 and noted that there were 300 Monks from Sri Lanka. They were in charge of the main shrine and had the exclusive right to sleep within its sacred precincts.

Sinhala monks also settled in South India. Parakramabahu II (1236-1270) had sent items for the use of Monks ‘settled in’ Pandya and Cola Kingdoms of Tamilnadu. I assume that these were Sinhala Monks. Monks also settled in Andhra Pradesh. The Vengi region of Andhra Pradesh was within easy reach.

The Naharallabodu Complex at Ven. Nagarjunikonda Thera resembles the monasteries at Anuradhapura. The overall plan and the position of the Monks cells, refectory, and image house was similar to those in Anuradhapura.

The Stupa design was also similar. It has brick walls instead of stone railings and two of the balustrades resembled Sinhala ones.

The complex had a ‘Sinhala Vihara’ dated to third century AD. It has a Bodhighaara and an image house. The Buddha Statue had relics enshrined in it. This was not the custom in India though it was quite common in Sri Lanka.

The moonstones also showed an affinity with the Sri Lankan moonstone. One was carved with figures of lion, elephant, bull and horse with figures of deer and bear added. This ‘Sinhala Vihara’ held a permanent community of Sinhala Monks.

Sinhala Vatthu Prakarana was translated into Pali at this Vihara. During the reign of Vijayabahu V (1335-1341), the Monks Silavamsa Dharmakirti There went to Amaravati in Andhra Pradesh and had a stone Vihara called Sri Dahanyataka built there.

There was a close link between the Sangha and the people. The Monk was a trusted teacher, guide and friend to the people. He was also a means of obtaining merit for the next life. The Sangha were called the ‘merit field’ where one could sow the seeds of merit and reap a good harvest in the next world.

When the Monks went on pilgrimage, they stopped and delivered sermons in the villages they passed through. It is recorded that Cittala Pabbata Monastery, near Tissamaharama was a noisy, crowded place unsuitable for quiet meditation as the people assembled in large numbers of pay homage to the Monks.

The public showed a genuine desire to study and master the doctrine. Classes intended for monks were sometimes converted to public lectures. When a learned Monk from Mahavihara went to study under Ven. Dhammarakkita Thera at Ruhuna, villagers built a big pavilion and listened to the exchanges between the Monks.

Some laymen knew the doctrine so well that they even delivered sermons. Some of the kings, such as Kassapa V were Buddhist scholars. Some high official of governments were also well versed in Buddhism. We come across a number of ministers who were learned enough to be commissioned to settle both ecclesiastical and doctrinal disputes.

However, the main public interest was in accumulating merit, Ven. Walpola Rahula Thera researching the Anuradhapura period, stated that acquiring merit was the motive underlying the religion of the laity from king down to peasant.

Good fortune was seen as the result of good Karma. Records were kept in royal families and also in the house of the rich known as ‘Merit Books’ (Punna Pottaka) where various important meritorious deeds were written down to be recited at death bed.

Merit was acquired through various means. Money was deposited in the temples for payment for wicks, oil, flowers and other items of worship. Nitalaviitiya Siva had deposited money for use by Devagiri Monastery.

The public attended Bana preaching. Ven. Walpoal Rahula Thera says that the public listened to preaching because they thought that they would gain merit simply by listening. The public also went on pilgrimages, ‘beautifully dressed according to Theri means’. Some went on pilgrimage to India as well.

The most popular method of acquiring merit was by giving Dana to the Sangha. According to the Kaludiyapokuna inscription several persons had arranged for meals to the Sangha at Dakkhinagiri Monastery. One devotee Dalana had deposited 23 Kalandas of gold for the purpose.

The Pali commentaries give instances where the poor fed the Monks even when they themselves were starving.

Some had mortgaged their children to give good to the Monks. One parent had worked in a sugar mill in order to liberate his mortgaged daughter, and then used the money to feed a Monk who was in danger of missing his midday meal.

The writings of O. Abeynayake, Y. Dhammavisuddhi, N. Dutt, C.E. Godakumbura, Siri Gunasinghe, R.A.L.H. Gunawardana, H.B.M. Illangasinha, W.A. Jayawardana, N.A. Jayawickrema, P.V.B. Karunatilaka, S. Kiribamune, A. Liyanagamage, S. Paranavithana, Ven. Walpoal Rahula Thera, W.M. Sirisena and W.I. Siriweera were used for this essay. Mahavamsa quotations are from the Geiger translation, 1950.

Concluded