Ask A Buddhist II

[patrick457]

(59) Megasthenes makes another division in his discussion of the philosophers, asserting that there are two kinds of them, one kind called Brachmanes = Brahmans] and the other Garmanes = Śramaṇa]; that the Brachmanes, however, enjoy fairer repute, for they are more in agreement in their dogmas; and that from conception, while in the womb, the children are under the care of learned men, who are reputed to go to the mother and the unborn child, and, ostensibly, to enchant them to a happy birth, but in truth to give prudent suggestions and advice; and that the women who hear them with the greatest pleasure are believed to be the most fortunate in their offspring; and that after the birth of children different persons, one after another, succeed to the care of them, the children always getting more accomplished teachers as they advance in years; and that the philosophers tarry in a grove in front of the city in an enclosure merely commensurate with their needs, leading a frugal life, lying on straw mattresses and skins, abstaining from animal food and the delights of love, and hearkening only to earnest words, and communicating also with anyone who wishes to hear them; and that the hearer is forbidden either to talk or to cough or even to spit; and if he does, he is banished from association with them for that day as a man who has no control over himself; and that, after having lived in this way for thirty-seven years, they retire, each man to his own possessions, where they live more freely and under less restraint, wearing linen garments, ornaments of gold in moderation in their ears and on their hands, and partake of meats of animals that are of no help to man in his work, but abstain from pungent and seasoned food; and that they marry as many wives as possible, in order to have numerous children, for from many wives the number of earnest children would be greater; and, since they have no servants, it is necessary for them to provide for more service from children the service that is nearest at hand; but that the Brachmanes do not share their philosophy with their wedded wives, for fear, in the first place, that they might tell some forbidden secret to the profane if they become corrupt, and, secondly, that they might desert them if they became earnest, for no person who has contempt for pleasure and toil, and likewise for life and death, is willing to be subject to another; and that the earnest man and the earnest woman are such persons; and that they converse more about death than anything else, for they believe that the life here is, as it were, that of a babe still in the womb, and that death, to those who have devoted themselves to philosophy, is birth into the true life, that is, the happy life; and that they therefore discipline themselves most of all to be ready for death; and that they believe that nothing that happens to mankind is good or bad, for otherwise some would not be grieved and others delighted by the same things, both having dream-like notions, and that the same persons cannot at one time be grieved and then in turn change and be delighted by the same things.

As for the opinions of the Brachmanes about the natural world, Megasthenes says that some of their opinions indicate mental simplicity, for the Brachmanes are better in deeds than in words, since they confirm most of their beliefs through the use of myths; and that they are of the same opinion as the Greeks about many things; for example, their opinion that the universe was created and is destructible, as also the Greeks assert, and that it is spherical in shape, and that the god who made it and regulates it pervades the whole of it; and that the primal elements of all things else are different, but that water was the primal element of all creation; and that, in addition to the four elements, there is a fifth natural element of which the heavens and the heavenly bodies are composed; and that the earth is situated in the centre of the universe. And writers mention similar opinions of the Brachmanes about the seed and the soul, as also several other opinions of theirs. And they also weave in myths, like Plato, about the immortality of the soul and the judgments in Hades and other things of this kind. So much for his account of the Brachmanes.

(60) As for the Garmanes, he says that the most honourable of them are named Hylobii ‘forest dwellers’ = āraṇyaka or vānaprastha] and that they live in forests, subsisting on leaves and wild fruits, clothed with the bark of trees, and abstaining from wine and the delights of love; and that they communicate with the kings, who through messengers inquire about the causes of things and through the Hylobii worship and supplicate the Divinity; and that, after the Hylobii, the physicians are second in honour, and that they are, as it were, humanitarian philosophers, men who are of frugal habits but do not live out of doors, and subsist upon rice and barley-groats, which are given to them by everyone of whom they beg or who offers them hospitality; and that through sorcery they can cause people to have numerous offspring, and to have either male or female children; and that they cure diseases mostly through means of cereals, and not through means of medicaments; and that, among their medicaments, their ointments and their poultices are most esteemed, but that the rest of their remedies have much in them that is bad; and that both this class and the other practise such endurance, both in toils and in perseverance, that they stay in one posture all day long without moving; and that there are also diviners and enchanters, who are skilled both in the rites and in the customs pertaining to the deceased, and go about begging alms from village to village and from city to city; and that there are others more accomplished and refined than these, but that even these themselves do not abstain from the common talk about Hades, insofar as it is thought to be conducive to piety and holiness; and that women, as well as men, study philosophy with some of them, and that the women likewise abstain from the delights of love.

…]

(72) Artemidorus says that the Ganges River flows down from the Emoda mountains towards the south, and that when it arrives at the city Ganges it turns towards the east to Palibothra and its outlet into the sea. And he calls one of its tributaries Oedanes, saying that it breeds both crocodiles and dolphins. And he goes on to mention certain other things, but in such a confused and careless manner that they are not to be considered. But one might add to the accounts here given that of Nicolaüs Damascenus.

(73) He says that at Antioch, near Daphnê, he chanced to meet the Indian ambassadors who had been despatched to Caesar Augustus; that the letter plainly indicated more than three ambassadors, but that only three had survived (whom he says he saw), but the rest, mostly by reason of the long journeys, had died; and that the letter was written in Greek on a skin; and that it plainly showed that Porus was the writer, and that, although he was ruler of six hundred kings, still he was anxious to be a friend to Caesar, and was ready, not only to allow him a passage through his country, wherever he wished to go, but also to co-operate with him in anything that was honourable. Nicolaüs says that this was the content of the letter to Caesar, and that the gifts carried to Caesar were presented by eight naked servants, who were clad only in loin-cloths besprinkled with sweet-smelling odours; and that the gifts consisted of the Hermes, a man who was born without arms, whom I myself have seen, and large vipers, and a serpent of ten cubits in length, and a river tortoise three cubits in length, and a partridge larger than a vulture; and they were accompanied also, according to him, by the man who burned himself up at Athens; and that whereas some commit suicide when they suffer adversity, seeking release from the ills at hand, others do so when their lot is happy, as was the case with that man; for, he adds, although that man had fared as he wished up to that time, he thought it necessary then to depart this life, lest something untoward might happen to him if he tarried here; and that therefore he leaped upon the pyre with a laugh, his naked body anointed, wearing only a loin-cloth; and that the following words were inscribed on his tomb: "Here lies Zarmanochegas = Śramaṇācārya ‘śramaṇā master’?], an Indian from Bargosa =Bhrigukaccha, modern Bharuch], who immortalised himself in accordance with the ancestral customs of Indians."

• Strabo, Geography, 15.1.59-60, 72-73

 

[patrick457]

Philosophy, then; with all its blessed advantages to man, flourished long ages ago among the barbarians, diffusing its light among the Gentiles, and eventually penetrated into Greece. Its hierophants were the prophets among the Egyptians, the Chaldaeans among the Assyrians, the Druids among the Gauls, the Samanaeans (Samanaioi) among the Bactrians and the philosophers of the Celts, the Magi among the Persians, who, as you know, announced beforehand the birth of the Savior, being led by a star till they arrived in the land of Judaea, and among the Indians the Gymnosophists sadhus and/or yogis], and other philosophers of barbarous nations. There are two sects of these Indian philosophers—one called the Sarmanai and the other the Braphmanai. Connected with the Sarmanai are the philosophers called the Hylobioi, who neither live in cities nor even in houses. They clothe themselves with the bark of trees, and subsist upon acorns, and drink water by lifting it to their mouth with their hands. They neither marry nor beget children like those ascetics of our own day called the Encratites. Among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of Boutta =Buddha], whom they honour as a god on account of his extraordinary sanctity.

• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.15

(17) For the polity of the Indians being distributed into many parts, there is one tribe among them of men divinely wise, whom the Greeks are accustomed to call Gymnosophists. But of these there are two sects, over one of which the Bramins preside, but over the other the Samanaeans. The race of the Bramins, however, receive divine wisdom of this kind by succession, in the same manner as the priesthood. But the Samanaeans are elected, and consist of those who wish to possess divine knowledge. And the particulars respecting them are the following, as the Babylonian Bardesanes narrates, who lived in the times of our fathers, and was familiar with those Indians who, together with Damadamis, were sent to Caesar. All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians. A Bramin, however, is not a subject of any government, nor does he contribute any thing together with others to government. And with respect to those that are philosophers, among these some dwell on mountains, and others about the river Ganges. And those that live on mountains feed on autumnal fruits, and on cows’ milk coagulated with herbs. But those that reside near the Ganges, live also on autumnal fruits, which are produced in abundance about that river. The land likewise nearly always bears new fruit, together with much rice, which grows spontaneously, and which they use when there is a deficiency of autumnal fruits. But to taste of any other nutriment, or, in short, to touch animal food, is considered by them as equivalent to extreme impurity and impiety. And this is one of their dogmas. They also worship divinity with piety and purity. They spend the day, and the greater part of the night, in hymns and prayers to the Gods; each of them having a cottage to himself, and living, as much as possible, alone. For the Bramins cannot endure to remain with others, nor to speak much; but when this happens to take place, they afterwards withdraw themselves, and do not speak for many days. They likewise frequently fast. But the Samanaeans are, as we have said, elected. When, however, any one is desirous of being enrolled in their order, he proceeds to the rulers of the city; but abandons the city or village that he inhabited, and the wealth and all the other property that he possessed. Having likewise the superfluities of his body cut off, he receives a garment, and departs to the Samanaeans, but does not return either to his wife or children, if he happens to have any, nor does he pay any attention to them, or think that they at all pertain to him. And, with respect to his children indeed, the king provides what is necessary for them, and the relatives provide for the wife. And such is the life of the Samanaeans. But they live out of the city, and spend the whole day in conversation pertaining to divinity. They have also houses and temples, built by the king, in which they are stewards, who receive a certain emolument from the king, for the purpose of supplying those that dwell in them with nutriment. But their food consists of rice, bread, autumnal fruits, and pot-herbs. And when they enter into their house, the sound of a bell being the signal of their entrance, those that are not Samanaeans depart from it, and the Samanaeans begin immediately to pray. But having prayed, again, on the bell sounding as a signal, the servants give to each Samanaean a platter, (for two of them do not eat out of the same dish,) and feed them with rice. And to him who is in want of a variety of food, a pot-herb is added, or some autumnal fruit. But having eaten as much as is requisite, without any delay they proceed to their accustomed employments. All of them likewise are unmarried, and have no possessions: and so much are both these and the Bramins venerated by the other Indians, that the king also visits them, and requests them to pray to and supplicate the Gods, when any calamity befalls the country, or to advise him how to act.

(18) But they are so disposed with respect to death, that they unwillingly endure the whole time of the present life, as a certain servitude to nature, and therefore they hasten to liberate their souls from the bodies [with which they are connected]. Hence, frequently, when they are seen to be well, and are neither oppressed, nor driven to desperation by any evil, they depart from life. And though they previously announce to others that it is their intention to commit suicide, yet no one impedes them; but, proclaiming all those to be happy who thus quit the present life, they enjoin certain things to the domestics and kindred of the dead: so stable and true do they, and also the multitude, believe the assertion to be, that souls [in another life] associate with each other. But as soon as those to whom they have proclaimed that this is their intention, have heard the mandates given to them, they deliver the body to fire, in order that they may separate the soul from the body in the purest manner, and thus they die celebrated by all the Samanaeans. For these men dismiss their dearest friends to death more easily than others part with their fellow-citizens when going the longest journeys. And they lament themselves, indeed, as still continuing in life; but they proclaim those that are dead to be blessed, in consequence of having now obtained an immortal allotment. …]

• Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food 4.17-18

 

[Vouthon]

Brother Patrick,

Thank you for the excellent quotation from Clement of Alexandria and Poryphry

I know of the one by Clement but not in that form - which somehow reads better - and it is usually quoted in shorter fashion (ie the part about the Hyloboi isn’t usually quoted).

BTW have you ever read the works of Hajme Nakamura? Brother, if not then you should - you would love him. He reminds me so much of you.

He was a Japanese expert on the Vedic religion, as well as Buddhist and Hindu scriptures, as well as a professor of Indian philosophy at Tokyo University. He passed away in the late 90s.

He wrote an excellent book which I read a while back called (If I recall aright), “A Comparative history of Ideas”, which went through a global history of ideas throughout various traditions, and which I think that quote from Clement was in.

He also wrote what is considered to be the world’s premier biography of the Buddha - which some suggest uses the most primary sources.

He also wrote a round-breaking study, I think back in the 60s, on the ways of thinking of Eastern peoples that I found immensely enlightening.

I recommend his work, he is world renowned for his knowledge of the Vedas, the Buddhist scriptures etc.

 

[Bakmoon]

Marvelous posting, Patrick! I just have one question: When was the Atharvaveda collected and when did it become widely accepted as canonical?

 

[patrick457]

Marvelous posting, Patrick! I just have one question: When was the Atharvaveda collected and when did it become widely accepted as canonical?

For starters: the Atharvaveda is mostly a collection of spells (or mantras) for various occasions and uses, along with a few hymns and verses. In this regard it is distinct from the Ṛgveda and the Sāmaveda (which are collections of hymns; in fact, many of the material in the Sāmaveda duplicate in part or in whole hymns and verses from the Ṛgveda) or the Yajurveda (a compendium of the liturgical formulas for the sacrifice). Take for example this formula against dysentery (1.2):

We know the father of the shaft, Parjanya, liberal nourisher,
Know well his mother: Prithivī, Earth with her manifold designs.
Do thou, O Bowstring, bend thyself around us: make my body stone.
Firm in thy strength drive far away malignities and hateful things.
When, closely clinging round the wood, the bowstring sings
triumph to the swift and whizzing arrow,
Indra, ward off from us the shaft, the missile.
As in its flight the arrow’s point hangs between earth and firmament,
So stand this Munja grass between ailment and dysenteric ill!

Or this curse intended for the defeat of enemies in battle (3.1):

Let the wise Agni go against our foemen, burning against ill-will and imprecation
Let him bewilder our opponents’ army, Let Jātavedas smite and make them handless.
Mighty are ye for such a deed, O Maruts. Go forward, overcome them and destroy them.
The Vasus slew, and these were left imploring. Wise Agni as our messenger assail them!
O Maghavan, O Indra, thou who slayest fiends, and, Agni, thou,
Burn, both of you, against these men, the foeman’s host that threatens us.
Shot down the slope, with thy two tawny coursers, forth go thy bolt, destroying foes, O Indra!
Slay those who fly, slay those who stand and follow.
On every side fulfil these men’s intention.
Indra, bewilder thou the foemen’s army.
With Agni’s, Vāta’s furious rush drive them away to every side.
Let Indra daze their army. Let the Maruts slay it with their might.
Let Agni take their eyes away, and let the conquered host retreat.

An expiation for an imperfectly performed sacrifice (2.35):

We who enjoying it have grown no richer, for whom the sacred altar-fires have sorrowed,
We who compounded with deficient worship,—may Visvakarman make our service prosper.
Rishis have called the sacrifice’s patron amerced through sin, sorrowing for his offspring.
Those drops of meath whereof the missed enjoyment,—may Visvakarman with those drops unite us.
Regarding niggard churls as Soma-drinkers, skilful in sacrifice, weak at the meeting,
Whatever sin the captive hath committed, do thou for weal release him, Visvakarman!
Awful are Rishis: unto them be homage, and to their eye and truthfulness of spirit!
Loud homage to Brihaspati, O mighty! Homage to thee, O Visvakarman! Guard us.
The eye of sacrifice, source, and beginning—with voice, ear, spirit unto him I offer.
To this our sacrifice wrought by Visvakarman may the Gods come gracious and kindly-hearted.

And finally, a short verse in praise of Indra and Agni (6.2):

Thee, Indra, we invoke, the Bull, what time the Soma hath been pressed.
Drink of the sweetly-flavoured juice.
The best of guardian hath the man within whose dwelling-place ye drink,
O Maruts, giants of the sky.
Let us serve Agni with our hymns, Sage who consumeth ox and cow,
Who beareth Soma on his back.

The Atharvaveda as we know it today is often considered to be the most recent of the four, dating from somewhere the late Vedic period (1000-600/500 BC), although some of its material may go back to the time of the Ṛgveda (the early Vedic period, 1500-1000 BC), while a number of others might even predate it, although not in linguistic form. Given the radical difference of the Atharvaveda to the other three (the Atharvaveda has less of a connection with sacrificial rites and has a this-worldly bent; this points to some of its material being of independent, popular origin in contrast to the priestly tradition of the other three Vedas), it took a long time for it to be considered authoritative, and even then, it is mostly relegated to a subordinate status: it was traditional to consider the three earlier Vedas as the trayividyā “threefold knowledge,” with the Atharvaveda being mentioned as an afterthought or ignored entirely.

I just wondered. Why are you asking about the Atharvaveda?

 

[notself]

If anyone wants to read the Buddhist suttas for themselves here is a link to the index of suttas by subject.

accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html

Some of the suttas are very compact and may seem obscure others are very long and may seem repetative but that is the nature of 2500 year old teachings from a completely different culture. The link is to the Theravada texts called the Nikaya. They are almost identical to the Mahayana texts called the Agamas. Mahayana has other texts beside the Agamas but rossum may be able to speak to those.

Here is a link to the life of the Buddha. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel433.html

 

[Bakmoon]

For starters: the Atharvaveda is mostly a collection of spells (or mantras) for various occasions and uses, along with a few hymns and verses. In this regard it is distinct from the Ṛgveda and the Sāmaveda (which are collections of hymns; in fact, many of the material in the Sāmaveda duplicate in part or in whole hymns and verses from the Ṛgveda) or the Yajurveda (a compendium of the liturgical formulas for the sacrifice). Take for example this formula against dysentery (1.2):

We know the father of the shaft, Parjanya, liberal nourisher,
Know well his mother: Prithivī, Earth with her manifold designs.
Do thou, O Bowstring, bend thyself around us: make my body stone.
Firm in thy strength drive far away malignities and hateful things.
When, closely clinging round the wood, the bowstring sings
triumph to the swift and whizzing arrow,
Indra, ward off from us the shaft, the missile.
As in its flight the arrow’s point hangs between earth and firmament,
So stand this Munja grass between ailment and dysenteric ill!

Or this curse intended for the defeat of enemies in battle (3.1):

Let the wise Agni go against our foemen, burning against ill-will and imprecation
Let him bewilder our opponents’ army, Let Jātavedas smite and make them handless.
Mighty are ye for such a deed, O Maruts. Go forward, overcome them and destroy them.
The Vasus slew, and these were left imploring. Wise Agni as our messenger assail them!
O Maghavan, O Indra, thou who slayest fiends, and, Agni, thou,
Burn, both of you, against these men, the foeman’s host that threatens us.
Shot down the slope, with thy two tawny coursers, forth go thy bolt, destroying foes, O Indra!
Slay those who fly, slay those who stand and follow.
On every side fulfil these men’s intention.
Indra, bewilder thou the foemen’s army.
With Agni’s, Vāta’s furious rush drive them away to every side.
Let Indra daze their army. Let the Maruts slay it with their might.
Let Agni take their eyes away, and let the conquered host retreat.

An expiation for an imperfectly performed sacrifice (2.35):

We who enjoying it have grown no richer, for whom the sacred altar-fires have sorrowed,
We who compounded with deficient worship,—may Visvakarman make our service prosper.
Rishis have called the sacrifice’s patron amerced through sin, sorrowing for his offspring.
Those drops of meath whereof the missed enjoyment,—may Visvakarman with those drops unite us.
Regarding niggard churls as Soma-drinkers, skilful in sacrifice, weak at the meeting,
Whatever sin the captive hath committed, do thou for weal release him, Visvakarman!
Awful are Rishis: unto them be homage, and to their eye and truthfulness of spirit!
Loud homage to Brihaspati, O mighty! Homage to thee, O Visvakarman! Guard us.
The eye of sacrifice, source, and beginning—with voice, ear, spirit unto him I offer.
To this our sacrifice wrought by Visvakarman may the Gods come gracious and kindly-hearted.

And finally, a short verse in praise of Indra and Agni (6.2):

Thee, Indra, we invoke, the Bull, what time the Soma hath been pressed.
Drink of the sweetly-flavoured juice.
The best of guardian hath the man within whose dwelling-place ye drink,
O Maruts, giants of the sky.
Let us serve Agni with our hymns, Sage who consumeth ox and cow,
Who beareth Soma on his back.

The Atharvaveda as we know it today is often considered to be the most recent of the four, dating from somewhere the late Vedic period (1000-600/500 BC), although some of its material may go back to the time of the Ṛgveda (the early Vedic period, 1500-1000 BC), while a number of others might even predate it, although not in linguistic form. Given the radical difference of the Atharvaveda to the other three (the Atharvaveda has less of a connection with sacrificial rites and has a this-worldly bent; this points to some of its material being of independent, popular origin in contrast to the priestly tradition of the other three Vedas), it took a long time for it to be considered authoritative, and even then, it is mostly relegated to a subordinate status: it was traditional to consider the three earlier Vedas as the trayividyā “threefold knowledge,” with the Atharvaveda being mentioned as an afterthought or ignored entirely.

I just wondered. Why are you asking about the Atharvaveda?

Because in the Pali Canon, the stock description for an educated Brahmin is:

… [a] master of the Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, & etymologies, and the histories as a fifth; skilled in philology & grammar, well-versed in cosmology & the marks of a great man.

So I was wondering if this could be used as a dating tool for the strata in the Pali Canon in which this stock passage occurs.

 

[Leelee82]

Does Buddhism teach that all suffering is caused by craving? Some types of suffering, such as cancer, starvation, etc, have causes other than craving.

 

[Bakmoon]

Does Buddhism teach that all suffering is caused by craving? Some types of suffering, such as cancer, starvation, etc, have causes other than craving.

The word “Suffering” is a problematic translation. The original word in Pali is “Dukkha” which doesn’t easily translate into English and so when the first western scholars translated Buddhist texts, they unfortunately translated it as Suffering. The word Dukkha is broad in meaning and it is also context dependent. When we say that craving causes suffering, we mean that craving causes discontent. When craving is eradicated through wisdom, although physical troubles still come, you will be at peace with it and it will not affect your happiness.

Also, ultimately even these physical sufferings are caused by craving in a roundabout way because it is craving that causes a person to be reborn. If there were no craving, there would be no rebirth, and therefore no physical suffering.

 

[notself]

Does Buddhism teach that all suffering is caused by craving? Some types of suffering, such as cancer, starvation, etc, have causes other than craving.

As Bakmoon says, this craving/aversion causes mental stress.

Terrible things can have many causes but one’s mental response to the situation is within our control.

The desire to eliminate stress does not mean one should be passive in the face of bad situations, but the physical and mental effort to overcome these situations can be separated from the suffering/stress that effects our minds. Crying over cancer never cured it. (I know about this. )

 

[AdamP88]

Also, ultimately even these physical sufferings are caused by craving in a roundabout way because it is craving that causes a person to be reborn. If there were no craving, there would be no rebirth, and therefore no physical suffering.

Can you explain this to me? I am obviously coming from a very different cultural viewpoint as an Irish Catholic but I’m genuinely curious about this…

For example…I had epilepsy and would have seizures? How does that fit this idea of “suffering” and “craving”?

 

[Lodro]

The word “Suffering” is a problematic translation. The original word in Pali is “Dukkha” which doesn’t easily translate into English and so when the first western scholars translated Buddhist texts, they unfortunately translated it as Suffering.

The translation of the word “Dukkha” that really nails it for me is “Fear”. That gets to the bottom of what we’re talking about. This is what one of our great contemporary teachers has to say about it:

“Suffering is fear. Fear has many aspects: frustration, seperation, attachment, death and hope. All of these are expressions of fear. First, there is the fear of losing something we value, such as our precious human birth or a precious teacher or precious jewelry. Because we cling to these things, attachment arise, as do fear and hope. Second, fear arises when we get something we do not want. There are many examples, from the flu all the way up to something called death. However, there is little difference among these expressions. Suffering is simply fear, whether it is fear of physical pain or fear of mental pain. In our fear of getting something that we do not want, there is perhaps less of an aspect of hope; nevertheless, the fundamental nature of suffering is fear, regardless of the form it takes.”
–WILD AWAKENING, The Dzogchen Ponlop R(name removed by moderator)oche pp. 193

Some types of suffering, such as cancer, starvation, etc, have causes other than craving.

Yes, and those by themselves wouldn’t fall under this definition, believe it or not. Pain itself is not an issue. Ponlop R(name removed by moderator)oche suggests that we might for example enjoy our headache. That sounds far-fetched, but as a small example, think about that “hurts but in a good way” feeling you have when getting a massage. It is our relationship to these kinds of physical ailments that has the potential to imprison us in this dukkha – hope that we’ll get cured, fear that we won’t, fear that we’ll suffer even greater pain, and so on. We all have know people that have cancer and actually become better equipped to deal with their more basic fears. Even starvation can be experienced in different ways. Consider practices that involve fasting. This is not belittling these issues, and definitely not to suggest that people experiencing these things don’t deserve our care or compassion, but just to suggest that it’s still not the core issue.

Technically speaking, there are three kinds of suffering. The all-pervading suffering that R(name removed by moderator)oche discusses in the quote above; the “suffering of suffering” which seems to me to be a sort of misery, when suffering is compounded by yet more suffering – “in addition to our fundamental fear, we develop a headache”; and the suffering of change, which is the problem of impermanence, now knowing what is going to happen next, but fearing that it isn’t going to be what we want. (I have this issue a lot. I’ll have expectations that my Saturday might go a specific way and then plans change. Even though that change might involve doing something unexpected and fun, I still don’t like the change itself.)

 

[Bakmoon]

Can you explain this to me? I am obviously coming from a very different cultural viewpoint as an Irish Catholic but I’m genuinely curious about this…

For example…I had epilepsy and would have seizures? How does that fit this idea of “suffering” and “craving”?

It’s not like specific types of craving actually directly cause physical suffering. The connection is very indirect.

It is only because craving is the cause for rebirth. If there is no craving, there can be no rebirth. Because these physical sufferings are just a part of life, which is caused by birth, which is caused in turn by rebirth, which is caused by clinging, which is caused by craving. That’s all it means. Craving doesn’t directly cause suffering in one’s present life at all. It merely causes one to take rebirth.

 

[AdamP88]

It’s not like specific types of craving actually directly cause physical suffering. The connection is very indirect.

It is only because craving is the cause for rebirth. If there is no craving, there can be no rebirth. Because these physical sufferings are just a part of life, which is caused by birth, which is caused in turn by rebirth, which is caused by clinging, which is caused by craving. That’s all it means. Craving doesn’t directly cause suffering in one’s present life at all. It merely causes one to take rebirth.

So craving and suffering are perceived as positive things which lead to rebirth?

Correct?

 

[patrick457]

Because in the Pali Canon, the stock description for an educated Brahmin is:

So I was wondering if this could be used as a dating tool for the strata in the Pali Canon in which this stock passage occurs.

As mentioned, the Atharvaveda was not deemed ‘canonical’ for quite a period of time. As you mentioned, the Pali Canon only speaks of three Vedas. Also, the Sāṇkhyāyan- Gṛhasūtras (dealing with domestic rituals and ceremonies) describes a ceremony which involves the symbolic “laying” of the Vedas on a newborn baby:

Let him pulverise black and white and red hairs of a black ox, intermix (that powder) with those four substances, and give it to eat (to the child) four times: such (is the opinion of) Mândûkeya. If he likes (let him do so) with the words,

'Bhûh! The Rig-veda I lay into thee, N.N., svâhâ!
'Bhuvah! The Yagur-veda I lay into thee, N.N., svâhâ!
'Svah! The Sâma-veda I lay into thee, N.N., svâhâ!
‘Bhûr bhuvah svah! Vâkovâkya (colloquies), Itihâsa, and Purâna—Om! All the Vedas I lay into thee, N.N., svâhâ!’

You would notice that the three Vedas (Ṛc, Yajus, and Sāman) are named, as are different literary genres like the vākovākyas (dialogues), the itihāsas (lit. “so indeed it was”; cf. epics and sagas like the Mahābhārata or the Rāmāyaṇa), and the *purāṇa*s (lit. “of ancient times”; myths and legends like those of the Agni or Bhāgavata Purāṇa), but the Atharvaveda is absent. That being said, there are places where the Atharvan is named along with the other Vedas, for example in the Black Yajurveda (Taittirīya Saṃhitā) 7.5.11, where it is called “the Angirases” (there was a tradition that the Atharvaveda was composed by two groups of sages or ṛṣis known respectively as the Atharvana - who gave their name to it - and the Angirasa):

To that which will burn hail!
To that which burneth hail!
To that which burneth terribly hail!
To the Rc verses hail!
To the Yajus verses hail!
To the Samans hail!
To the Angirases hail!
To the Vedas hail!
To the Gathas hail!
To the Naraçansis hail!
To the Raibhis hail!
To all hail!

 

[Leelee82]

Were the Mahayana writings written much later than the Pali Canon?

 

[notself]

Patrick,

Would the Gṛhasūtras ceremony which involves the symbolic “laying” of the Vedas on a newborn baby have been performed around 500-400 BCE?

Would this blessing have been done on the baby Siddhattha by a Brahman priest?

 

[Bakmoon]

So craving and suffering are perceived as positive things which lead to rebirth?

Correct?

Only craving leads to rebirth. And no, neither craving nor suffering are seen as good things. You may be thinking along the lines of “Life is good, so rebirth must be a good thing” but to a Buddhist, this leaves out the possibility of something much greater. According to the Theravada teachings, a fully enlightened arahat (i.e. someone who has completely eradicated craving) will not be reborn, but will have something far better: Parinibbana, which is the direct experience of Nibbana. Nibbana can be fully experienced in the current life yes, but only for temporary periods of time. For the Arahat after death, Nibbana is forever, and since Nibbana is the perfect happiness, this is better than even life itself.

 

[AdamP88]

Only craving leads to rebirth. And no, neither craving nor suffering are seen as good things. You may be thinking along the lines of “Life is good, so rebirth must be a good thing” but to a Buddhist, this leaves out the possibility of something much greater.

I am beginning to understand a little better. The reason I asked were craving and suffering seen as good things was coming from a Catholic perspective.

As a Catholic, while we don’t view suffering as a good thing as such, we do try to offer our sufferings to God as prayers as a means of attaining grace.

Bearing our suffering with dignity is seen to be a good thing in this sense.

 

[notself]

Were the Mahayana writings written much later than the Pali Canon?

It’s hard to be specific in dating for several reasons. The first is India did not follow a calendar common to the West. Secondly, texts do not do well in tropical climates. Third, many schools of Buddhism were oral traditions before writing texts down. The final reason is the great library at Nalanda was burnt down by Turks in 1100 CE and original texts were probably lost.

That said the stone pillars of King Ashoka are dated to 250 BCE and he sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka around that time. They brought the suttas of the Theravada tradition with them. So Theravada links it origins to that time.

The earliest Mahayana texts are dated around the beginning of the common era, don’t use the word Mahayana, and are the same as Theravada texts. The earliest stone inscription that can be identified as distinctly Mahayana was carved around 180 CE.

Theravada and Mahayana both follow the same rules for monastics and these texts called the vinaya contain a number of suttas as well. There are no differences in these texts.

Theravada and