Ven. Dhammajeeva's dhamma talk

[Lars Underbakke]

Hello everyone! Lars here.

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were concerning venerable Dhammajeeva's dhamma talks. His talk on the 32 marks of a great man was a bit distressing to me, it seemed as if he was saying that if one is kind and looks on others with kind eyes in your previous life you will be born in your subsequent life with "beautiful blue eyes". To me the message of this seems to be overtly racist. As is the "mark of light skin".

Anyone who is familiar with the Pali Nikayas will realize that the "32 marks of a great man" are a Brahmanic relic that pre-dated Buddhism and some how crept back into the suttas. There are a few suttas where someone seeking an audience with the Buddha goes to find him and cant tell him apart from the other bhikkhus. And then there is the sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya I believe, where the Buddha and a bhikkhu are sleeping in the same hut at night, and the bhikkhu doesn't know his companion is the Buddha until the Buddha gives him a brilliant dhamma talk. So clearly the Buddhas physical appearance was no different than a normal human being.

I didnt get a chance to question ven. Dhammajeeva about his talk, did anyone else get a chance to do so? Is his apparent belief in the 32 marks unique to him, or is it a doctrinal position of his monastery? I look forward to everyones thoughts,

Peace.

Lars.

[Lennart Lopin]

Lars & others,

we setup a forum on mahamevnawaflorida.org for Dhamma discussions related to this weekend's Dhamma talks etc. 

James asked a similar question and the best answer would probably come from Bhante Jeevananda himself - or someone who has listened to more Dhamma talks by Bhante Gnanananda. 

thanks,

Lennart

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FloridaBuddhism" group.
To post to this group, send email to florida...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to floridabuddhi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/floridabuddhism?hl=en.

[Brian-Ananda]

Lars,

You are absolutely correct.  The "32 Marks of a Great Man" is very much a Bramhinical ideal--I may even go as far as saying a Ancient Indian ideal as it has seemed to invade every aspect of Indian philosophy up to and after that time.

However, my assessment is very different than yours.  I think it is imperative that we evaluate something within its context.  You said yourself that it predates Buddhism...so why would we...how could we...evaluate this within the context of a modern American society?

You say that this is racist?  I've traveleld abroad a good bit and found that most nations are mostly a single race of people.  Lack of contact with other races leads them to be less politically correct than us.  If an American born person used such emphasis, I'd be concerned, but with Sri Lankan I'm not.  The ethnicity they quarrel with has no physical distinction (other than language and religion).  Therefore, they are not so sensitive to physical distinctions as we are in our culture, with our history.

Blue eyes was something merely rare to the region.  Had the region been filled with blue-eyed people I have no doubt that it would been brown or hazel eyes that were the distinquishable mark.  The fact is, in a land where modern India sits, blue eyed individuals are very unique.  In the same way, such a great person as the Buddha--or any great Brahman, I suppose--would be a very unique person.  The general social prejudices prevelent in modern Sri Lanka today accept such notions that physical beauty is related to inner beauty.  A beautiful voice is to be admired from someone pure at heart.

So it doesn't match reality?  Americans are no different, and I challenge you to take a deep look before you disagree with me.  Sure, we would never say right out that physical beauty means someone is more apt in any way.  Yet, attrative men and women find their way into promotions and job much easier than those without such beauty.  Are we really any better just because we are a bit more discreet?

I really felt a need to reply to this email on principle, rather than content.  I am very much like you by nature, and it hindered me ever making real progress in meditation attainment for a long time.  My attempts to compare everything that was said to my extensive knowledge of Buddhist philosophy and psychology did nothing but prevent me from a deeper understanding of it all--where one, ironically, see even stark differences to be quite superficial.  

What seems ridiculous...even pointless...can become very clear and appearant if we realize that sometimes the lesson being taught is much less important than framing up one's view in a certain way as to "see past" certain perceptual distortions.

Furthermore, I have learned to not let disagreements hinder my apprehension of an important lesson.  I have learned very valuable things from those less versed and attained.  In fact, some of the most important things I have learned have come that way.

In summary, I very much agree with you to a point--I don't accept the 32 Marks in any way literal.  However, I would caution against turning anything said by a monk into an intellectual pursuit.  It isn't the "not knowing" that stresses us; it is how we feel about not knowing that stresses us.  An intellectual pursuit will not fix an emotional problem.

We may say, "He seems smart, we can't he see the rational truth in front of him?"  We may feel like fools in the future, however, if/when we find that framing one's mind up in a particular way for a particular reason was the real purpose behind a particular teaching.  (Morpheus says, "There is a difference between walking the path and knowing the path.")

Westerners--myself included--have a tendency to see our view as "what's left when all the cultural BS is removed".  In reality, we simply insert our own cultural BS that we don't see as cultural.

Just as Bhante Jeevananda probably doesn't see his view as cultural baggage, either. ;-)  We are just as absurd in many of our views.  I wouldn't want anyone to think ill of me for it.  I'd expect them to brush it off as a cultural difference and not see more into it.

---

If it makes you feel any better, I am currently drafting a letter to address the board regarding dogmatic issues of doctrine.  I do not want someone that matches my beliefs--as I probably wouldn't learn anything and find it boring--no one should be led to feel that a dogmatic belief is being pushed on them.  (I also ask that no Westerner push their non-belief on others, too.)  Although I would not (and could not) mandate what a monk beleives, I will ensure that no one is expected to accept anything about the doctirne that is dogmatic.  And I began this letter before I read your email, so you can rest assured it is my own view and very sincere.

The whole reason for my being on the board is to represent the "Western View" for MMMF.  If you have any issues, please speak to me so that I can bring up your concerns. 

 

---
It is not what we believe, but how we live that defines who we are.

---

From: Lars Underbakke <larsund...@gmail.com>
To: florida...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 6:37:15 PM
Subject: Ven. Dhammajeeva's dhamma talk

[Philipp Puaschunder]

Hi Lars (and others),

Rather than answer all your questions, I would just like to address
the distressing emotion many of us have felt as a result of the
statement, "Because the bodhisattva did not have anger in past lives,
he was born with beautiful blue eyes."

If Ven. Jeevananda had said, "Because the bodhisattva was generous in
his past lives, he was born into the comfortable life of a wealthy
prince," would we feel equally distressed?

Probably not. The reason is that most of us are subjected on a daily
basis to mass media owned by people who push an anti-racist
agenda—most of the time in such a subtle way that we don't realize
it's happening. If our media were instead controlled by
anti-classists, we would no doubt tend to find the second statement
"overtly classist" and have no issue with the first.

Keep in mind the scriptures don't say, "People with blue eyes are
superior to others when it comes to realization of the Dhamma," just
like they don't say, "People who are born wealthy are superior to
others when it comes to realization of the Dhamma."

I propose the distress we feel is the result of a conflict between
21st century American mass media and Buddhist doctrine. The solution I
suggest is to observe a few people whose main source of cultivation
comes from the mass media, then observe a few people whose main source
of cultivation comes from Buddhist scriptures, then decide which group
comes closer to how we want our lives to be and choose our main method
of cultivation accordingly. I'm not saying don't watch TV, but we
could spend four hours a day listening to or reading the Dhamma and
meditating and half an hour watching TV rather than four hours of TV
and half an hour of meditation and Dhamma. That way, when we watch TV
or read the news, we will feel agitated or distressed, but when we
hear the Dhamma, we will feel at peace.

Hatred is not overcome by hating the person who hates. Hatred is not
overcome by hating the hatred. Hatred is overcome only by non-hatred.
I know this is easier said than done, but it can be done, and the
Buddhist scriptures contain instructions on how to do it.

May all of us be happy and well.
May all living beings be happy and well.
May all our enemies be happy and well.

Philipp

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Lars Underbakke
<larsund...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Asela Atalugama]

Intersting question and a good detailed response from Brian.

 

I think I also heard the same dhamma talk, which looked carefully prepared for the kids. I think it is just a very simple example he used to explain (so the little kids understand) the importance of doing the right thing and living a good life so good things will happen to you.  

 

Asela

[hemant sharma]

The "marks of the great man" are pre buddhist indian yogic lore. It may be memory of pre homo sapien sapiens humans from sat yuga who became extinct. (Long arms and ears etc)

The blue eyes part imo came centuries after the Buddha when some monks started claiming to be Buddhas and the "criteria" were tightened further obviously to prevent such claims because in that part of india blue eyes are quite rare.

I have seen some causal explanation in the suttas of pleasant and attractive personalities being caused by kindness in previous births.

A contemporary teacher of the Buddha is mentioned as saying that skin color is due to karma, a clear hint of the vedic varna (colour) system. I'm not sure if this was explicitly refuted in the suttas.

---

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:40:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Ven. Dhammajeeva's dhamma talk
From: nova...@gmail.com
To: florida...@googlegroups.com

[David Braughton]

Dear All,

While I appreciate deeply the sensitivities expressed about making distinctions based upon physical characteristics, I agree with Asela: let's not miss the point of Bhante's message or the Suttas that he quoted. The issue isn't blue eyes or 32 distinguishing features of a "great man". The issue is how our actions create consequences that impact us both now and in the future. I've seen and know what drug and alcohol abuse does to people, as an example, and it ain't pretty, no matter what color eyes the person has.  I also have seen people in recovery who have rolled back the years and walk about with a serenity that many of us can only hope for. Our actions have consequence!  What else really matters?  

Having spent many years applying critical methods to the Christian Bible, I don't see any reason I shouldn't read the Suttas with an equally critical eye seeing redactions as redactions, cultural accretions as cultural accretions, myth as myth, etc.  Indeed, I believe such an approach is directly in keeping with the essential teachings of the Buddha.  

I found Bhante to be a marvelous and effective teacher. I don't need to agree with his literalism to appreciate his profound and transforming insights; insights that are authenticated by the example he set while among us.  Thank you all for the discussion and for reminding me not "to confuse the unessential for the essential or the essential for the nonessential less I never realize the essential".

With deep metta for all of you, my brothers in the Dhamma.

Sent from my IPad

[Brian-Ananda]

Sadhu! Very good point, Philipp.

I would like to ask everyone, out os courtesy to the FBV and members of this
mailing list, that we move the conversation to the MMMF Forum at:

http://www.mahamevnawaflorida.org/forum/

This way, the conversation can be seen to unfold in a more organized manner--not
to mention more easily archived for viewing in the future--and we can be
respectful to those that do not want their email boxes filled with our
conversation.

Again, I am no moderator so my words have no weight, but I think most everyone
involved will agree with me. This list is really supposed to be limited to
announcements and questions regarding FBV events. Given that this conversation
is associated with a joint event by the FBV & MMMF, it certainly isn't improper.
At the same time, Bhante Ananda would probably prefer that we not fill the
listserv with such conversation.

In my experience, the more email traffic a mailing list has, the less everyone
pays attention to it. I would like every to pay close attention to the emails
coming form this list with Vesak coming up.

I have already ported the initial conversation to the forum and I look forward
to continuing the conversation.

Metta

---
It is not what we believe, but how we live that defines who we are.

Hi Lars (and others),

Philipp

--

[Lennart Lopin]

Thanks all of you for the great Dhamma questions and discussion! As David mentioned, we are very fortunate indeed to be surrounded by so many kalyanamittas. I saw some of you already signed up on the forum ... 

For those of you who know Sinhala I was able to find a Dhamma talk (well, more a contemplation) on this topic by Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda:

http://storage.worldispnetwork.com/Mahamevna01/mp3/Maha_purusha_lakshana.mp3

Some of you may of course also know the "4 Great Standards" which - when applied to Lars' question - could help solve textual inconsistencies such as the 32 marks vs. the Buddha being physically not recognized at times during his lifetime:

http://sasanarakkha.org/articles/2004/09/four-great-standards.html

I also wanted to add that Mahamevnawa is a relatively young organization (they were founded 12 years ago) and within that short time they have done an amazing job - as you witnessed they take their spiritual guidance for conduct and practice from the Dhamma&Vinaya. In that sense, though we get to know them through individuals from Sri Lanka, they themselves care less about culture than about the practice of the Dhamma. I am sure points like the one Lars and others raised will be discussed within their Sangha, because, as far as I understand, their ultimate motivation is to follow the Buddha's Dhamma as close as possible - and you saw how honest and humble they are in their approach.

lots of metta to all,
Lennart

http://mahamevnawaflorida.org/forum