return to
dhamma writings

• Words
• Questions about Buddhist cosmology and concept of time
• Type of teaching in different periods
• do we still need monks?

Words 

I accidentally posted a similar question on the general bulletin board so, i thought it might be better to repost it here. Recently I have been spending more time trying to figure out the different Buddhist traditions and terminology I have had less time for practice. As I pondered this it seems to me that the different traditions were themselves attachments? Am I missing the point or what? I am trying to advance my practice and feel the need for more structure. I am quite a novice and have studied on my own and I don't feel my practice fits in to any one tradition. Is this going to be a problem? Any wisdom would be greatly appreciated! Thanks Rich

Re: Words 

I never noticed the difference in Buddhism until I joined in this discussion forum. I loved reading Dhamma books whatever I could find. I just knew that I was reading that book from Thailand or those books from Tibet. They seemed the same to me until I joined in this forum. Now I discover that their name is only the difference. The Buddha’s teachings are the same. Buddhists from different sects in this forum can understand and talk to each other with ease.

However I feel I can learn Theravada and Tibet Buddhism easier than Zen and Pure Land. So I recommend you to learn what you feel comfortable and easy to progress. Begin from the closest to you first. The more I learn Dhamma, the little I had understood Dhamma.

I have the same feeling as you. I do not feel my practice fits into any one tradition. Be universal and open mind for any possibilities. Read then cultivate to confirm your understanding in Dhamma. Do not believe the Buddha because he is the Buddha.

I have been doing some reading and thinking this weekend (always a dangerous thing!) and I have a question to throw out there. It is frequently said that all sentient beings have been our mothers at some time. This implies that samsara has been going on for an EXTREMELY long time. I frequently see Kalpa mentioned as a unit of extremely long time. Certainly longer than the scientific estimate of the age of this planet. Eventually, the sun will die out or explode, ending all life on this planet. Does Buddhism suggest that re-birth and samsara would then occur on another planet in this universe? Or would there be other mechanisms involved. Could some one explain the most commonly accepted basic ideas of Buddhist cosmology and time ( I realize that this could be extremely difficult). It still makes more sense that the idea that the universe is 4000 years old but I must be missing something here. Most Buddhist texts in English ignore these issues. Thanks -- Nevin

Dhammachak Kalpa-vattana sutta was the first teaching of the Buddha. There was a word “kalpa” or “kappa” that related with time from the beginning of Buddhism. However this kalpa is not the unit of our man-made system although someone had shown that 1 kalpa was xxxx years. I was taught that kalpa was the time unit of internal clock. This internal clock moved fast or slow depend on each individual consciousness. A practitioner may attain arahantship within 7 days, 7 months, or 7 years depend on how he cultivates Dhamma. If he can attain the 4 th meditative state and can vipassana then he will pass to arahantship in only 7 days. His internal clock moves very fast.

Dhammachak = Dhamma wheel

Kalpa = time or unit of life time

Vattana = move, develop, grow

Generally there is an explanation that this sutta name means, “Dhamma is growing constantly as the rolling of wheel.” This is how modern man implies after 2541years of Buddhism. But I was taught that Dhammachak could control how the internal time moves.

The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and the Middle Way in this sutta. So this teaching must relate with time in somehow. Dhamma can reduce the number of rebirths to end sankhara faster.

This posting has no proofed from any documents but hope it will be a probability waiting to be proofed.

Here is what I found about kappa from A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi, chapter 5.

An aeon (kappa): The Buddhist text speak of three kinds of aeons- an interim aeon, an incalculable aeon, and a great aeon.

An interim aeon (antarakappa) is a period of time required for the life-span of human beings to rise from ten years to the maximum of many thousands of years, and then fall back to ten years. Twenty such interim aeons equal one incalculable aeon (asankheyyakappa), and four incalculable aeons constitute one great aeon (mahakappa).

The length of a great aeon is said by the Buddha to be longer than the time it would take for a man to wear away a mountain of solid granite one yojana (about 7 miles) high and wide by stroking it once every hundred years with a silk cloth (S.15:5/ii,181-82). hill

As promised, here are the type of teaching Shakyamuni Buddha taught but divided into different periods.

The teaching was divided into five periods and eight teachings by Great Master Chih-i (538-597 A.D.) The five periods is catergorised into two kinds of Dharma and wisdom: the expedient and actual.

1) The Avatamsaka period represent in the world by Avatamsaka sutra, consists in the Dharma spoken by the Buddha during the first 21 days of his teaching. The period includes one kind of expedient Dharma and one kind of actual Dharma: the gradual and the sudden. This initial period was spoken to suit the Bodhisatvas.

2)The second period is Agama period, the Buddha spoke no actual Dharma, or actual wisdom but instead spoke an expedient Dharma. As this is initially for normal sentient beings who are not capable of understanding the true Dharma. The Buddha used various expedient Dharma-doors to induce and guide them, to transform them and to take them across.

3) The third period is Vaipulya, the Buddha spoke 3 kinds of expedient and 1 kind of actual Dharma. At the time the 4 teaching were explained together: the treasury (tripitaka) teaching of Hinayana; the connecting teaching; and the special teaching and the perfect teaching.

4) The fourth period is Prajna; in it there were two kinds of expedient Dharma - the connecting and special teaching. And one kind of actual teaching, the perfect teaching.

5) Lotus-Nirvana is the last which includes the Sutra of the Lotus Flower of Wonderful Dharma and Mahaparinirvana Sutra, there were no expedient Dharma; there was only actual Dharma and wisdom.

This is all i got as the book stated it will take too long to explain in detail. I do not have the info on the sutras spoken on each type of teaching. I think it is intend to be so as the expedient Dharma shouldn't be revealed because the expedient is very useful for those how cannot understand/believe the actual Dharma and act as a steping stone for them to go to the actual.

Kuo-Keong

Do we still need monk/nuns?

Near where I live, someone made available a beautiful mediation room. It is a building built specifically for that. It sit on a fairly large forested property crossed by a stream. He is a retired surgeon and his wife is a retired university prof. Meditation and dhamma study is central to their lives. They kindly invite anyone who wishes to come every sunday morning to sit with them, and a dozen of us have gratefully accepted. After one hour of sitting, we listen to a tape dhamma talk. They are mostly from teachers in the theravada tradition, and from Gaia House, as he goes back periodicaly to his native England to do retreat with Christopher Titmuss, Martine or Stephen Bachelor. After the tape lectures, we sometime stay for a cup of tea and a chat. Today, again, we ended up talking about the Buddhist institutions of the East, and the role of the monastic sangha.

I took the position that the dhamma will not take root in the west without a monastic order to give it an anchor. I've come to believe (it wasn't always thus) that dhamma teachers who are not firmly rooted in an established school and monastic sangha, tend to personalise the teachings. Without the framework and guard rail imposed by monastic rules, lay teachers will run the risk of having their ego inflated by their "admiring" students, with possible results that are not good for teachers, students or the establishement of dhamma in the west. In the few years that I have been a Buddhist, I have seen a teacher who, after giving up the robe of a theravada monk, went from teaching theravada Buddhism as a layman, to teaching basic Buddha-dhamma without attacment to any particular tradition, to Buddhist inspired spiritual teachings, to now teaching his very personalised brand of dhamma. I think it is ok to have lay teachers, so long as they are linked to an established monastic sangha. Otherwise, I fear that we could end up with a new-age-mixed-sallad served with a thin Buddhist sauce.

Many of my fellow meditators (nicely) disagreed with me. They took the position that monks may have been necessary in the past but that now, we have dhamma books, teachings on tape, on video, on the internet plus traveling dhamma teachers coming to town every now and then. There was also the fact that some of them had been to Asia and felt that the monks they saw there didn't live up to what they had imagined them to be when they first encountered the dhamma. Some talked about the collective wisdom of the lay sangha replacing the traditional need for monks.

Well, what do you think? Can the Buddha/dhamma take root in the West without the support of monastic institutions?

Hoping to start a useful discussion, Pascal, Vancouver, Canada.

Someone may still need to be a monk once in his life or future life. Being a monk can help cultivating Dhamma a lot. When a layperson attains arahantship, he needs to be a monk otherwise he will die within 7 days. Monk is always necessary although we do not need him.

Arahantship is a level of the noble person who will not reborn in lower realm again. There are 4 levels: sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, and arahanta. Only arahant can stay in Nibbana with the Buddha.

I have to correct the period from “within 24 hours” to “soon or within 7 days” after rechecked with Dhamma books. I thought I had read “24 hours” from a book but I could not find that book. Arahant needs to be a monk because monk status is more refined than normal status of layperson otherwise he will die soon or within 7 days. Please refer to Phra Pahiya in the Buddha’s time.

I think maybe being Arahanship means that person has no karma anymore and a human being cannot live without karma so he has to do something. Anyway, it's just a guess. Ann

I have found another book (Karma Thipani by Phra Phrommolee) indicating as follow:

“Layperson who passes arahantship will die in the day of his arahant attainment. However if his life is not ended, he must be a monk as long as his life is not over.”

Why? I do not know because it may be a natural rule. I guess arahant should not live, work, have wife, or earn money as layperson. He should not attach with suffering from our normal way of living.

Do you think you want to be ordained as a monk in the future?

Do you think those who are really immersed in Dhamma (but he or she doesn't want to be a monk or a nun) should have a family? (I mean get married and have children)

It seems like love & bond is a big attachment for us, human being. Ann

Sawaddee Krab Ann,

To be a monk is no need to be ordained. You and I can be a monk mentally but not physically. To be a noble person is more important than to be a conventional monk. My goal is to be a noble sangha.

If I am a monk then I will miss this forum and you because I should not involve too much in discussion. I have many things that can be done successfully only when I am layperson. If I am a monk, I will be there in the forest or far away from people and civilization and I must practice a lot in order to be a real good monk.

Being married and having children is very strong bondage. Have you hear a story of a man who was married with his father? Luang Poo Budda told his previous life that he once was a monk who was sick and he told his disciple to stop a dog that was barking. The dog was tied at the fence and the disciple forgot to untie this dog because Luang Poo Budda at that life was dead and everybody had to make a ceremony. The dog died.

This life as Luang Poo Budda, before he became a monk, he saw a pretty woman and fell in love. But this woman could recall her previous life. She asked Luang Poo Budda that why you wanted to be married with the dog he tied at the fence. Luang Poo Budda could recall also.

Although this story is not about a man who was married with his father, it is very similar. Marrying and having children are caused from previous karma. Karma is very complicated and it controls our life without knowing. When you are married to a man, you are attached not only to that man but also to his family and his karma. Marry is like catching a deep-water fish, you never know whether you will be able to catch a fish or just a lost can. I am lucky for having a very good wife.

Being married and having children is suffering. Someone may need a support, friend, and children to look after her/him in old age. (Thai way of life) But nothing can guarantee.

What if this person is a female? I make assumptions of your answer, but will be patient and wait. Is this eminent death viewed as a sort of "blessing" as opposed to a dreaded punishment? 

Red Texas,USA

> What if this person is a female? I make assumptions of your answer, but will be patient and wait. Is this eminent death viewed as a sort of "blessing" as opposed to a dreaded punishment?

I can not find any evidence for female but I think it should be the same. That death is viewed as blessing. I believe that death for arahant is simple as just leave the physical body to Nibbana.

Thanks for your response. I understand what you say about a mental monk. Khun Mae Siri also said the same way. My grandfather who founded Wat Umong was also once asked why he not lived his life as a monk and he said that he could serve the Buddhism and help to spread Dhamma and do a lot of things easier and better as a lay person. As we all know, there are many restrictions if one becomes a monk.

Do you think we can avoid our Karma? Is this life predestined? Do we have free will? If the past life indicated that we have to get married in this life and live a miserable life with a bad spouse, that means it has to be so? Hmmm... pretty scary, isn't it? Anyway.. we never know what's gonna happen to us, it's no use to think, just keep practicing Dhamma and life is in our hands. :)

I tend to think being married and having children is suffering and that is because of love. Cause it's like when I love someone a lot and I'm worry about him and I'm afraid to lose him and so on. That is suffering, I think. I used to read somewhere that love is like a flower garden that has to be watered with tears. And I think it's really true. But no one can avoid love and I am now happy with my love despite the fact that I have a little insecurity inside.

Anyway, that's how life goes... :) Ann

Last updated
01-12-2542