| 18. | Dear Sayardaws,
I would like to know about one thing happening quite commonly in society. If a girl get pregnant because of a man with or without her desire but he refuse to get married her, is the man found sinful from Buddhism perspective? | | Unistud06 | 03-Dec-2014 | According to Buddhist tradition, if an adult woman, independent and free, spends one night together with an adult man in a same room out of her own wish, it is legal to say that she got married to a man and people can take them as husband and wife. They don't need to go in front of a court officer for signature. Same way, when they agreed with each other to divorce and really stopped their marriage life, they are free to be singles.So, I think, your sister doesn't violate the precept of Kamesu, though she has relationship with another free man. |
Sayadaw U Kelasa
Dhammacariya, B.A. (Philo), M.A. (Buddhism)
28-Apr-2015
|
|
| 17. | Dear Phone Phone,
Hope everything's well with you. I have a question that I have doubt. Please answer if you can Phone Phone, thank you very much.
If a woman who had a child and divorced with her ex husband and no longer associated with him legally at all and , but living somewhat under the financial support of her parents , is she still considered " a girl under the guidance of parents/guardian" even though she's already married before and have kid, and if she chooses to have another lover and conduct in relationship (like husband and wife kind of relationship) without the consent/knowing of her parents, is it still considered "Kar May thu"? or not and any aku thow for her or her new partner?
Thanks for taking time for answering questions. Please leave this question and answer and anonymous and not mentioned on website if possible, Phone Phone.
With all the best wishes and praying the best. | | John Aung | 19-Sep-2014 | No Kamesu
Source
Here is a story: Once, Sakka, king of the gods, tried to test a courtesan's precepts. He took a shape of a young man and gave her a thousand pieces, saying, "I will visit you. " Then he disappeared for three years. But she kept waiting for his visit without ever accepting new customers. As a courtesan, she became so poor and difficult to keep her promise that she finally went to the Chief Justices and tell him how she should do. Then the Justices said "Because he does not come for three years, now you are free. Earn your wage as before. " As soon as she left the court, she met a new man who offered her a thousand for a visit. As she was about to take it, the former young man (Skka)showed himself. And so she refused the new one, saying "Here is the man who gave me a thousand pieces three years ago. I must go with him. " Then Sakka taking his form as Deva king praised her goodness in the midst of the crowd assembled.(Jataka-tha II, p. 341.)
To think
In Buddha's time, Ambapālī of Vesali, as a good and prestige Buddhist courtesan, served Buddha and his disciples until she entered the order as a Theri (female monk).
My Point
According to above mentioned stories, a courtesan (= a prostitute) can observe 'no adultery', the 3rd precept very well, if she does not brake her promise to the scheduled man until the end of her duty. From this Buddhist point of view, we can say women are free and independent when her guardians (i.e., mother, father, or both, etc.) agree or let her free and her age is legal. Here, 'independent' means that she is not considered that she is under anyone's protection at that situation and she should have her right and freedom to be on her own choice.
No Kamesu
You said 'she divorced her husband legally', so she is free to deal with her marriage regardless of financial support of her parents. I don't think that she should need her parents' approval for that to maintain her precept, because she got already married, having a child. So, if she chooses a free man as her new lover and has relationship with him, she gets no Akusala or no Kamesu.
I think, however, it is better if she could consult her parents while living in same house and under their financial support just because of respect, but not because of precept. |
Sayadaw U Kelasa
Dhammacariya, B.A. (Philo), M.A. (Buddhism)
03-Dec-2014
|
|
| 16. | Dear Sayardaws,
Refer to the answers of question number 14 dated 15 Sep 2007, I would like to request you to elaborate more about "Doing Sangha Kam".
Moreover, general talking about meditation among three monks in "Thain" can be "Diving of unity of Sangha"?
And please help me explain the meaning of reference guidance like (Wi 4 367).
I aplogise for writing in English since I am not able to type burmese.
With Metta and thanks, | | Aung Phyo Maung | 09-Mar-2013 | Enough
Schism
The answer for Question No. 14 is just to give readers some knowledge
about 'The Kamma of Causing Schism in the Order
(Sangha-bhedaka-kamma)' which is on of five unintervenable weighty
deeds (Panc?ntariya-kamma) and to let them know that that is
Sangha-kamma (= the work of monks) which only monks can gather
together in a Sima hall and do and so it can be committed only by
monks; still the ordinary householders, going back and forth between
the two sides and reporting good or bad news to one another, can cause
the division of united monks.
I think the explanations I gave in such a small web page are enough
for general readers. If you want to know more about it, please go
farther to read the particular Vinaya Pitaka translations.
Not sure
I am sorry I am not sure of the meaning of second question.
Abbreviation
"Vi 4, 367" is an abbreviation of one of the original Pali Texts and
the page I quoted from. Most researchers add additional pages in front
of their book, showing the abbreviations they will use. I add the
abbreviations in my answers just for the persons who can read the
original Pali Text and easily can pick up the Text and page I show.
For ordinary readers, it is better to leave it. There are two main
Burmese Tipitaka abbreviation systems; one is like in
Shattha-sangayana Canon and the other in the Tipitaka Pali-Myanmar
Distionary. Here I prefer the first one to the second. Vi 4 is
contracted of Vinaya Pitaka Vol. 4, which is called Culavagga Pali,
and the number 367 is for the page of it. |
Sayadaw U Kelasa
Dhammacariya, B.A. (Philo), M.A. (Buddhism)
09-Mar-2013
|
|
| 15. | Dear Sayar Daws,
I have watched some documentary videos from Youtube which prove that Jesus was traveling to India during his missing years or some videos demonstrate that he was a Buddhist monk. Those videos are made by the the credible sources such as BBC or Indian government. It becomes controversial issues among the religious people. Do Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka say anything about Jesus being a Buddhist monk or traveling to India? Do you believe this is true or do you have any other ideas based on this controversial issue?
Regards,
Eh Dah | | Eh Dah | 03-Dec-2012 | Jesus to the East?
Tucson GOC
Mid fall of 2003, I visited Greek Orthodox Church in Tucson, Arizona. There I met a responsible monk and had a conversation with him. When I asked him to explain about the Church I am not familiar with, he told me the creation theory first, then the coming of Messiah Jesus and GOC, and concluded saying Roman Catholic group betrayed Christians.
Conversation
After listening to his long lecture, I got a chance to have him some questions. 'Reverend, did you mean God created the world in 4004 BC? 'Yes, exactly'. 'Is it copped with what the modern scientists say today?' 'No, we don't care what they say. Their knowledge is very narrow and what they say is totally wrong.' 'Thank you, Reverend,' said I and continued 'May I ask you just one another question, if you don't mind? 'Sure'. 'Could you explain about the life of Jesus Christ between the age of 12 and 30, please? 'Did you want me to say Jesus went to India or Tibet to learn Buddhism?' asked he with glare eyes. 'No, I am sorry, Sir. I just wanted to know where he was and what he was doing during these years.' 'He was just a carpenter in Nazareth, the capital of Israel.' 'Thank you, Sir.' Then we stopped conversation and I covered my yellow robe with the black long coat which every one must ware to enter the main GOC.
No evidence
We should understand and respect him. No one can be satisfied with accepting the founder of their religion to be a disciple of a different religious teacher. There also is no evidence that we can say Jesus Christ arrived in India or no name equivalent to him in Tipitaka scriptures which belong to our Theravada Buddhist tradition. Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus before they came together, was a carpenter. And Luke says, 'He (Jesus) went down with them (his parents) and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them (Luke 2:51)'. If Jesus lived together with his parents there, I think that what the Greek Orthodox monk said is very possible.
Original source
I think the original source of this issue may be based on the book entitled 'The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ' written by Nicolas Notovitch over a hundred years ago. I got a copy of this book when I was in Burma (1999). According to introduction, Notovitch traveled in Tibet after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 and there he contended a chief lama who made available to him an old manuscript relating to the travels of Jesus in India and Tibet. Then he translated it from Pali (as much as I can remember, not from Sanskrit) and published the book mentioned. Some other Internet sources assume that the author was probably born a Jew but converted to Russian Orthodoxy and also a journalist and wrote some political books in both Russian and French.
Controversy
This book generated immediate attention and enduring controversy. It challenged the longstanding tradition that Jesus stayed in Israel all his life. Perhaps the biggest problem was no one could confirm the existence of the documents or even that Notovitch visited the Tibetan monastery where he stayed some months. In some books written by later reserchers, it is said that the follow up visits by various investigators shortly after the publication could not verify Notovitch's claim (Ref: Lost years of Jesus, Elizabeth Clare).
|
Sayadaw U Kelasa
Dhammacariya, B.A. (Philo), M.A. (Buddhism)
03-Dec-2012
|
|
| 14. | Dear Sayadaws,
I am studying in a Seventh Adventist (Christian) University. In my philosophy class,I also have to learn about different philosophies from different religions. Though I am a Buddhist, I do not know much about Buddhist teaching. According to my instructor (a Christian), Buddha taught that nothing is permanent and the belief of Buddhism is that there is no self, no soul and no body. She has a question for that. The question is why Buddhism believes in reincarnation or reborn if there is no self, no soul and no body? How do the death people reborn? She does not find the answer for that question and she said the idea is not logical and it does not make sense. I would like to know whether her lectures are correct or not and I also would like to request Sayadaws to give me some explanations regarding to my instructor's question.
With much respects,
Eh Dah | | Eh Dah | 01-Mar-2012 | REBIRTH WITHOUT A SOUL
Soul-idea
There are two kinds of soul - individual and universal or divine. The individual soul is called Jiva-atta. It is an unchanging, eternal and immortal entity and controls the whole mind and body activities. When the body is destroyed by death it is separated and looks for new one. As soon as it finds out one it is transformed into a being and a new life begins again. It is supposed to be the essence of man. The Universal soul is called Parama-atta. It is a God or Creator or Governor or a Divine essence. Jiva-atta is created by Parama-atta, another words, the former is a tiny part of the latter. Immortal soul and God are absolutely necessary to prove the existence of eternal heaven and hell.
Just process
Buddhism denies all eternal things mentioned above. It teaches that every thing is changeable and not eternal and there is no immortality inside or outside this world.
What we call a being is mind and body or five aggregates - namely; materiality, feeling, perception, and mental formations. All kinds of consciousness and mental states are called mind. One mind-moment consists of three sub-moments: arising, presence and dissolution. What we called body is a compound of twenty-eight types of matter. The duration of matter consists of seventeen such mind-moments. Immediately after one moment of mind or matter there occurs another arising of the subsequent one. So, mind and body or aggregates are constantly changing.
It is like the flame of a lamp or the stream of a river that is a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that we cannot perceive them separately. The arising of one moment means the passing away of another moment and vice versa. No eternal entity between these rapid moments of mind and material phenomena.
Think about how you were last seven years ago. We cannot say that I am the same person as I was the last moment. Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. In the course of one life-time there is momentary death and rebirth without a soul. Life is just process.
Rebirth
As the process of one life-span is possible without a permanent entity passing from one moment to another, so a series of life-processes is possible without anything to transmigrate form one existence to another. To produce a new being it is the force of tanhᾱ - the attachment to live - under the guidance of Kamma energy.
Re-birth is the arising of new aggregates (khandhᾱnam pᾱtubhᾱvo) caused by the last generative thought of a dying person. The last thought-moment of this life perishes conditioning another thought-moment in a subsequent life. With this mind and body one does a deed and by reason of this deed another mind and body is reborn into next existence. In one sense it is a new being, in another it is not (na ca so na ca añño), like reflection in a mirror.
No reincarnation
This doctrine of rebirth is different from the idea of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth.
A simile
We may illustrate this process by a series of billiard balls. "If another ball is rolled against the last stationary ball, the moving ball will stop dead, and the foremost stationary ball will move on. The first moving ball does not pass over, it remains behind, it dies; but it is un-deniably the movement of that ball, its momentum, its Kamma, and not any newly created movement, which is reborn in the foremost ball." (Dr. Ᾱnanda K. Kumᾱraswᾱmi, Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism, p.106.)
See also: H. S. Olcott, The Buddhist Catechism, Q. No. 231-240.
|
Sayadaw U Kelasa
Dhammacariya, B.A. (Philo), M.A. (Buddhism)
01-Mar-2012
|
|
