Brain Scans: Buddhists really do know secret of happiness

truth
We must not forget that Tibetan Buddhism is a theocratic state (now in exile, of course), and like all states it had at its disposal the power of coercive force. Hard to imagine that this theocracy never used violence against its "deviant" citizens.
I will be gone til next Wednesday. Have a good discussion.
Gassho

the rise of the dalai lama wasn't exactly peaceful either.

in fact tibet may not even be buddhist today had it not been for the assassination of the last king of tibet by buddhist monks.

This thread is about Buddhism, but to understand Buddhism we have to know something of the root religion from which it came and the milieu in which it was born. Buddhism was born circa 500 BCE in northeastern India. In this posting I will make try to give you some notion of Hinduism and conditions on the sub-continent around the time that Buddhism came into being.

Cultural and political conditions in what is now India/Pakistan were greatly influenced by successive waves of invasion. Most invaders entered the sub-continent from the northwest, and pushed earlier peoples southward as they conquered the sub-continent. The caste system was already developed, though not so complex as it later became. At the top of the hierarchy were the Priest and Warrior Class, and at the very bottom, the Untouchables. Conquerors filled the upper slots and the lower castes were made up of those who had earlier been in control. Mixing of castes was almost unknown, though the conquerors always eventually were assimilated into the larger and older culture. By 500 BCE Aryan peoples from the trans-Caucus were the top dogs, but northeastern India was still pretty much a frontier. It was there and in that time that Siddhartha and Buddhism was born.

That isn't quite correct, the Jain movement had already emerged to challenge the status quo and many Jain doctrines can be found in early Buddhism. The status quo was what we call today, Hinduism. Explaining Hinduism is a challenge. Until recent times one only became a Hindu by birth, not by conversion. The religion was, and is still closely bound to the culture of the Indian people. Each village had it's own gods, rituals and practices. Across the whole of the sub-continent there developed certain similarities as people were displaced by successive waves of invasion. Native pantheism, somewhat similar to the religion of the Greeks around the same time, subsumed the local gods. Ultimately three primary universal "forces" came to dominate, but not totally eliminate local gods and beliefs. Krishna is the universal creative force; Shiva is the Destroyer, and Vishnu is the Preserver. These are all male manifestations, and they have female counterparts with whom the sexual act reflects the wholeness of the force personified. Only when Shiva and Kali (female/death) are in sexual congress is the elemental destructive nature of the universe complete. Each of these three branches comprises almost a separate religion with their own priests, devotees, special practices and rituals. There is a unifying force, Brahma. Brahma is sort of like Zeus, or God The Father in the Christian Trinity. Brahma brought all the other forces into existence, but also exists as an independent continuing religious presence somewhat co-equal with Krishna, Shiva and Vishnu. Brahmans are the highest of the social casts.

Where the Abrahamic religions hold that the universe is finite and "supervised" by a single outside Creator God, the religions of India held that the universe is infinite and there is no individual consciousness in absolute control. Two concepts from India are well known, but largely misunderstood.

Karma. In our pop culture, "good" and "bad" karma is lingua franca of the New Agers. There isn't such a thing. The Sanskrit word "Karma" might be defined merely as "consequences". It just is. In traditional Hinduism, Karma is a chain that determines outcomes. It is not something that one can alter, but a force that must be accepted. The family into which a person is born is an expression of Karma, and it cannot be changed.

Reincarnation. Actually there are two different concepts here. Transmigration of souls is what most people generally think of when the term is used. That is the survival of the soul from one lifetime to another. A person can be born in one lifetime as a male, and in another as a female. Once a prince, again as a frog. In transmigration of souls, the effects of Karma may be mitigated. Live a "proper" life, and one may be reborn into a higher form of existence. Reward and punishment. Transmigration of souls and Karma provided the justification for the rigid social caste system that developed in India. One never wanted to risk falling in caste; so few people ever challenged their lot in life. This was a pretty good means by which the over-class/conqueror could maintain their control of the system.

Of course, the rigidity of the socio/cultural/religious system generated a lot of stress. To relieve some of that stress, it was acceptable for some to opt out. A person, excepting Untouchables, could opt out of the system by becoming a wandering mendicant/hermit/holy man. The drop-out was free to ponder philosophy/religion and to preach their views. Sometimes they attracted rather large followings, and occasionally a new Hindu sect was born. The two notable examples here are the Jains and the Buddhists, both of which became full-blown religions in their own right.

Both challenged the fundamental concepts on which the prevailing religion rested. Both denied the existence of a soul ("Atman" in Sanskrit), and that made the transmigration of souls definition of reincarnation meaningless. Neither the Jains nor the Buddhists completely abandoned the idea of reincarnation, but their meaning when using the term is closer to Karma, consequences. One's behavior isn't individualized so much as it is part of a larger working out of a vast chain. Good behavior performed in a person's lifetime is not lost at their death, but rather continues on to influence behavior in succeeding generations. A popular explanation is a candle flame used to ignite a new wick before being extinguished. The extinguished candle is "dead", it's flame gone for all time, yet a new and different candle flame continues to burn.

Karma to the Jains and Buddhists is likewise transformed from a prison sentence to a more dynamic elemental force that individuals can "used" to improve this life, as well as the world that will live on after them. Both the Jains and the Buddhists began very much as social-reform movements and as such were pretty radical for their time. Neither was ultimately very successful in really changing the religion/culture of most Hindus.

Any questions?

I do not think that buddhist monks actually assasinated a king, although I did not read Tibetan history. Perhaps you have mistaken someone for being a monk.

http://www.kungfubc.com/history.htm
Here is a quote from the website: "No Buddhist monk would ever carry a weapon or any other tool of war which could cause harm to any living being. By doing so, a monk would be in direct contradiction and violation of his oath, morals and Buddhist faith."

I am not very sure of Tibetan history, but here are words clear and direct from the Buddha, with clear and direct purpose - to clear any doubts about how serious Buddha sees killing as, written in the Brahma Net Sutra:

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/correspondence/xFaure.php
"If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community."

In Buddhism, even a "suggestion" that has a potential to lead to a real killing, is not allowed.

It is clear that no killings done by a monk, will be acceptable in Buddhism. I believe monks who kill for whatsoever reason will be kicked out of the Sangha community, but as far as I have known, there has been no such cases, although I cannot be sure about that.

Yes I agree that all ordinary human beings are fallible - but buddhist practice, if practiced correctly, will lessen the potential by a lot. Buddha is one example who is no longer fallible to violence. Instead of resorting to violence, Buddha will radiate Metta (love) instead, as Buddha's saying goes, "the only way to stop hatred is through love".

http://www.studentgroups.ucla.edu/buddhist/library/metta/metta8.html
There is a story about a drunk elephant sent by his evil cousin who actually attempted 4 times to assasinate Buddha himself, only to fail, and the elephant charged at Buddha, but through Buddha's practice of Love (metta), the elephant stopped in front of Buddha and bowed down. Of course not all buddhists will be able to do that, but buddhists believe that everyone has an equal potential to become a Buddha, everyone's buddha-nature (Awareness) is full and complete.

About Hinduism, the reason why Hiduism was not changed much is because Hinduism is really too widespread... its an old faith of thousands of years even before Buddha. However Buddha's position opposing the caste system due to the Human Rights, has changed a kingdom's adoption during Buddha's time about caste system, which the King after being taught the Dharma abolished the whole system in his country. Ashoka, a well known and popular Indian king stopped all his wars, violence and conquests after he saw the pain he caused and became a Buddhist, and spreaded Buddhism to many other kingdoms, and even to the European continent (learnt that in my history lesson hehe). This has also promoted relations and trade with other nations. He has never converted Hindus to Buddhists, but instead, carved words of dharma on stones, which turned out to be successful.

In 842AD, King Langdarma of Tibet was assassinated by the Buddhist monk, Lha Lung Pelgyi Dorje.

In 1959, Sri Lankan prime minister, Solomon Bandaranaike was also assassinated by the Buddhist monk, Talduwe Somarama.


you ever hear about the shaolin monks?

Yes I have heard some about Shaolin monks. Shaolin monks practice Kungfu (which can be traced back to the times when Buddhism migrated to China from India, when the monks learnt kung fu as they were helpful on their journey) for self defence and as a way of exercise to keep their body fit for meditation. They belong to the Buddhist sect of Zen, which emphasizes on Meditation. http://www.haineskenpo.com/articles_history.htm

I have to look into both assasinations which I've not heard of, again, because I'm not good at buddhist histories.

Asherman
Friend Asherman, thank you for the fascinating background history of Buddhism.

Asherman, and his wife Natalie, are both Buddhists. While strolling around their beautiful home, you can see the Buddhist influence among the Southwestern Indian culture, blending perfectly in harmony.

BumbleBeeBoogie

You want to hear something funny? Well here it is. My father, a "chsistian," will tell you that all religion stems from christianity. In other words hinduism and buddhism came from christianity, there fore christianity is the only true religion. How do you like em apples?

What IS the experience that I spoke of above, and how unique is it? Each culture fits the "experience" into it's own contextual framework. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that the "experience" itself is pretty much the same in all times and in all places. During the last two centuries East Asian descriptions of the "experience" have gained popular acceptance in Europe and America. Ideas central to religions with Hindu roots became familiar to the British during their occupation of India. As East Asia was opened up to European colonization, interest in the mysterious and romantic religions of the people flourished. Tales of "secret doctrines" and the supernatural powers of religious orders hidden away in the fastness of unexplored Asia were rife. Tolstoy, Nietzche, and other Europeans adopted into their thought and work the mystical influences they believed typified Eastern religion. Madam Blavatsky and a host of other mystics built followings that outlasted their own mortality. These, and many others, saw the contrast in how the East and West regarded time, reality, and the relationship of Man to the Universe.

Serious Western scholars often made valiant efforts to learn dead languages like Sanskrit so that they could better understand the religious writings of the East. The modern world owes a great debt to those scholars whose work remains important to understanding Eastern religious thought. What has received somewhat less attention are the descriptions of the mystical experience by people within the Euro-American cultural set. Independent of Eastern influence, there are many descriptions by Western writers that are striking similar to what we find in the East. It is not necessary for Euro-Americans to adopt Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese culture to understand and seek the experience that, I believe, lies at the heart of every religion.

THE experience is not owned by any particular cultural group, but is common to our species. I strongly believe that it is relatively common in occurrence among people who are "properly" situated to receive it. Some people are more affected than others by the experience, but no one is completely unchanged afterward. The experience may be so shocking and frightening to the unprepared that they may later be diagnosed as insane.

Most commonly people regard the evidence of their senses as reality. We move about in a world defined by spatial and temporal dimensions. Ours is a world of multiplicity. "We" are not alone, but are part of a larger existence filled with other consciousnesses, organisms, and material objects. We feel. Physically we can be hot or cold, in pain or soothed by a soft touch. Our inner world is filled with fleeting thoughts and emotions. We can be excited or afraid as well as happy and secure. That is normal perception for most people.

Sometimes that normality is shattered. There is no gradual shift in perception, but suddenly all of our perceptions change. Spatial and temporal dimensions vanish. Our sense of individuality evaporates as the Ego, Id and Super-Ego collapse. Without time or space or individualized consciousness, there are no boundries. Multiplicity is replaced by an indivisible Completeness. Physical and mental constructs no longer exist. For a few, and the unprepared, fear can overtake and submerge the awe that is more natural to the experience when their ego starts to go. In this state, the Truth about the Oneness of Reality seems self-evident. In that state there are no unanswered questions. Once "Awakened", one never completely goes back to sleep where the dreams of our "normal" perception are uncritically accepted as "real".

The experience lasts, because time/space are not relevant to Ultimate Reality, forever. To "normal" perception, the experience may seem to last as little as a nano-second, though most usually believe their experience lasts perhaps a few minutes. A very few may repeatedly and often move between corporal reality and Ultimate Realty. This is THE peak experience in life. Once experienced, who can take mundane reality seriously? What could possibly compare to being for a few "moments"/"forever" to be merged into, in Western terms, GOD!

How can one have this experience? Indian, Buddhist, and Taoists have spent a couple of thousand years path finding for us. As Buddhism expanded out of its cradle, it was changed as Chinese terms and cultural norms were adopted. The Buddhist movements in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, et. al., reflect their local languages and customs as well as the ancient Sutra. "Sutra" is the Sanskrit root for thread, or to sew, and is a familiar English medical term. For Buddhism to become truly endemic to America we have to fit it into our own language and cultural context. This is, I think important so that more people can be helped to find the "experience".

I believe that Siddhartha had this experience, and was able to so clearly communicate it that Buddhism was born. I believe that Jesus and Mohammed had this experience, but that the message was polluted and made ineffective by the philosophical underpinning of the Abrahamic faith. Jewish and Christian mystics, those who reported having the experience did not generally fare well. The Inquisition enforced the notion that the World is a finite creation of an omnipotent force whose plan is embodied in the religion's doctrine and dogma. There was no place for an infinite and depersonalized view of Reality as unified whole rather than multiplicity. Now, in the 21st century, perhaps we are ready to explore the implications of a universe where "normal" perception no longer defines Ultimate Reality.

Sounds like a good trip to me. Havent been there yet myself, but in due time.

Short cut........ayahausca, and such related compounds.....crazy.....maybe.......but, hey.

Perhaps. In the fullness of mundane time the dream world will resolve itself back into the One. The Universe will awaken from the Dream, but another will take it's place.

In the meantime, more people CAN have this experience and be transformed by it. Preparing and helping people to the "experience is a central "mission" of Buddhism. I'll write more about that over the next few days/weeks.

To Asherman>
You seem to be quite well rounded, however I know of people who would condem you to hell. Not me, I would never condem a decent person. But they do, and they condem me as well. What have you to say to that?

Well, I'm a Buddhist and the condemnation to a Christian Hell has little meaning to me. Even the Buddhist equivilents don't really apply if one is "in touch" with the real nature of Ultimate Reality. Remember a few posting backs I discussed the varieties of religious experience. The notion of hell is a product and reflection of folk culture and it's needs. Some religious sects, recognizing those levels of reality, foster the concept of "soul" and a reward/punishment post-death consequence of behavioral fault. So, Heaven and Hell have no real hold over me at all. I might die before the night gives way to dawn, but so what? I try to live each moment of each day as well as I can. I often fail, and the consequences of my failures is both personal suffering and the suffering of others. I try.

Even if I believed in an Abrahamic structure of reality, where Heaven and Hell were literally true, the condemnation of others would mean nothing to me. What does my neighbor know about justice and judgement, or about what exists in my heart and mind? I've had lengthy relations with the criminal justice system, and expect the judgement of the All-Mighty to be a more perfect than that in the oak paneled courtrooms of our country. What sort of justice is likely when rendered by rumor, or by the uninformed opinion of some individual who does not know me, or the circumstances within which I think, speak and act? We often judge ourselves more harshly than the most bloody minded judge and jury. We assign and accept guilt for what we are not responsible for, and we alibi our "sins" when they appear too great to bear.

Live well. Live each moment of each day as completely as you can. Suck all the nectar from life that presents itself. The notion of Hell is bound up with suffering, and it is suffering that Buddhism is a prescription against. The greatest "virtue"/"merit" comes from mitigating the amount of suffering that exists in the world. The greatest "sin" is to aggravate and increase suffering. Those who wish and hope that others who hold differing views should suffer, aye mightly; those are the ones who bring down upon themselves suffering in consequence. Pity the poor bastards, and try to reduce their suffering.

Talking about Hell and Heaven it reminds of me a Zen Story:

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai", the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" sneered Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar".
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword.
Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably to dull to cut off my head."
Nobushige drew his sword.
Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, put away his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise", said Hakuin.

About the asssasinations, I've yet to read them, but I can say that I believe those are extreme cases. Yes I'm not perfectly non-violent, at least to mosquitoes They do spread diseases here in Singapore. But if the killing of one evil king will lead to liberation to hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps it is needed. For example, if Osama Bin Laden is in sight but you cant capture him, you know the right thing to do . But I believe the buddhist monks did not do that in the name of Buddhism, neither does that change the fact that there isn't any Buddhist wars in history.

Fake followers of religion
I'd like to say something about regarding calling people who fight in the name of "Buddhism" as being fake Buddhists. As someone mentioned, why isn't anyone else from other religions called fake when they fight a war in their religion's name?

My opinion is that, if that religion teaches non-violence and compassion for all living beings, and they fight wars in that religion's name, then they are just misguided, as their religions do not encourage such actions. This applies to all religions, not only Buddhists.

And please excuse me if I what I said is incorrect because although I am a Buddhist, I haven't really started studying very intensively And I'm only 13.

What are your views on this?

Witty, enjoyable Buddhist talks
By the way, if anyone has any doubts about Buddhism, I would recommend Buddhist talks by Ajahn Brahmavamso. His talks are very comprehensive and appliable to life. And they're also very humorous so listening to them is very enjoyable. The link to Ajahn Brahm's audio talks is this: Ajahn Brahm's talks

Go check them out. Personally, Ajahn Brahm is the only venerable I can sit still and listen to for 3 hours.

You're 13!? Oh come on, if you wanna lie, at least say you're 12. If you want to ridicule me then uh... ... I mean, I *AM* 13 alright, I am serious about it, I swear I am, I can give you my school name etc and since you're in Singapore you can find me. dahh. what was i thinking.

Well I think Ajahn Bramh is the most popular english dharma teacher with all his teachings going online, but in my opinion, there are really many teachers who can talk dharma very well too, although some may not go to the net, and most are spoken in Chinese.

Well my point is, there is NO wars fought in the name of Buddhism, yes there are certain violence in the Korean sect from Buddhists, but not wars in the name of Buddhism, and other non-buddhist-but-claiming-it-is buddhist groups, and I think true buddhists who practice Dharma would find most of the violence non sensical and ridiculous, well, according to what the situation is. What I mean't by fake buddhists are buddhists are e.g some unknown worshipping sect who claims they are buddhists.

You're Buddhist btw, right? If you are you shouldn't lie (about your age) its against the.. erh... 4th rule of the 5 precepts..

Anyone can say anything they want here, and there's no way to verify what they say unless you exchange personal information with them or meet in person. If you're only 13 I'd strongly advise against doing that.

Maintain your anonymous status distance.

Then again, regarding age you may all be full of hooey.