Thought for the Day

I am mostly a Buddhist but I say mostly because I still have problems accepting it fully.

About "fairness", I wonder whether this is something intrinsic in us, sort of biologically, as there is no real reason why a physical Universe of which we are part of, should have any moral (Good vs Bad) Laws operating within it apart from the evolutionary perspective of survival, and survival of a species certainly depends on "moral" behaviours such as cooperation, sharing and caring for each other. These operate on a more macroscopic level but when it comes to explaining individual misfortunes, I struggle to see the connection, unless you either believe in a Supreme Force (very manipulative if there is one!) or in Karma. I can see the law of Karma or cause and effect, operating in the Universe, but not necessarily in a "moral" way. For example, a man who fiddles his Tax return or grows assets in off-shore investments, breaking the Law, could get rich and then reap the "effects" of his "actions" by having a nice house, holidays, ability to donate large sums of money to Charities, educate his children, support his less well-off relatives and so on. Morally what he did was wrong as accepted by Society as he could have been jailed and punished for it, and provided this did not happen till he died, he only had gains rather than losses. Buddhists may say that he will reap the consequences in his next birth, but he may say "who cares, it is not "me" as far as I am concerned". That actions have reactions is thus quite acceptable to me but how it operates morally in a physical Universe is beyond me. Having said that, just because it is beyond me, it does not mean it is not there! Which brings me to this fascinating concept of fairness. Fairness means different things to different people. The  thief might say that "it is not fair that I was caught because of all the precautions I took and it was quite by chance, nobody could have guessed, that the power would cut off at a critical moment", "it just ain't fair!",he says.

Take the case of the son of a very distinguished colleague of mine (A Professor and Knighted). The whole family had gathered in the Prof's House the day before the wedding and in the evening, his son went out for a walk with his fiancee. They passed a wooded area and suddenly, a man leapt at them and stabbed the son to death and ran away. He was caught, He was a Mentally unsound person on "community care" under supervision in a hostel. As a result, the whole family was turned upside down, You can imagine the grief and despair they must have felt. Being good Christians,  they went to church and thanked God as He must have had a good reason for allowing this to happen and the son must be happy up there in the arms of the everloving One. This experience will only strengthen them and help make them better persons, so they believe. If they were Buddhists, they would probably console themselves saying it is not only his Karma but that of all of us for this to happen. So what really happened? Was it just chance? He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Was it retribution? The bare fact is that he is dead, he is no more, he is an ex-son (as John Cleese would have said!). How to come to terms with it? Both the Christian approach and the Buddhist approach would undoubtedly help the victims, whether it is true or not. It does not matter whether or not there is a Helicopter hovering above you ready to descend and help you if you need as you trek the Sahara (Samsara), what matters, in the end, is your belief that it is there which will calm you down and give you confidence.

Fairness is I think intrinsic. We believe that there is or there should be some kind of justice in this World. Even an Atheist will say that good people deserve to lead a good life. An Atheist would not go beyond saying that chance can operate in this World, leading to all sorts of disasters ("I happened to be in that plane that crashed" Period. It was not God's will or Karma). Or, take another instance, I helped that man in every possible way when he needed me and it just isn't fair that he cheated me after all that I did to him.

Returning to whether it is "fair" or reasonable for the current "me" to suffer the consequences of a previous "me" (rebirth), the problem arises because we cannot see a continuum of previous "me" to current "me". If I see the continuum, I can see how it happens and it has happened, fair or not! The example I often quote is the child who through carelessness, lost most of his hand in an unfortunate factory accident. This child is now an adult - without one hand. Is it fair that what he did as an innocent, and may be an ignorant child, should "punish" him now? Fair or not, it was action leading to consequence.

A Letter to a Friend

By Mahendra, March 2nd 2018.

Introduction: First of all, let me say that I have a close friend with whom I exchange philosophical ideas. What I have discovered about my communications with her is her absolute honesty and sincerity. She trusts me and appreciate that good friends can be frank with each other, have differing views but still have respect for each other. I regard that as a tremendous compliment and find it deeply touching. With each other, we needn’t worry about political correctness and the question of hurting each other’s feelings do not arise as our discussions are at an intellectual level and although critical at times, always open and devoid of malice, scorn or other such negative connotations.

“I have often wondered why I think on matters such as what is the meaning of life, is there a God, does  Rebirth really happen, what is morality, why should we be moral, does it matter to know the answers, can we ever know the answers, does any human being have the capacity to know the answers, does  the acquisition of knowledge by reading books and other sources of information provide the answers, can we “understand” by deep introspection by just “thinking” and finally does it matter to know the answers, if that was possible?

I cannot provide one consistent answer but I can share my thoughts with you.

Firstly, I am a curious person and have always been so. My beloved mother used to say “Mahendra, why do you keep asking me why? Why? Why this, why that!” in frustration! The fundamental appeal of science to me is that. I can still picture my Chemistry teacher at Royal Mr Arulanandan, addressing the class and saying “Always asks the question why, never accept without questioning”.

It therefore seems that asking questions and asking “why” is something which is part of me and in some ways, almost an end in itself. But with ageing and maturity, my attitudes towards knowledge and beliefs have also changed. I am much more aware of our limitations and of the wide literature, both in Science and Philosophy on these subjects.

I know that there are no simple answers to many of the philosophical questions I ask. Furthermore, I have abandoned the quite naïve belief that if you are intelligent, you will apply the scientific method and you will get the answer. Long long ago, I thought that anybody who believes in a God, especially an all-loving merciful God is daft! I am pleased to say that I don’t hold that view now. Intelligence and belief in God or not linearly related!

I know that what we believe and accept is driven by a whole host of factors, some conscious and others not. The conclusions we come to are made within a Physical brain and a “hard to understand or conceptualise consciousness, or mind”, which operates by churning a whole host of available information, feelings, concepts, beliefs, knowledge acquired now and before, being influenced by cultural factors, family influences, past personal experiences and many more. Because of this, each one of us is unique, as our past and present are unique. If I listen to a classical piano piece and enjoy it, I will also recollect things connected to it such as a memory of where I heard it, with whom  I was with, the events which preceded it and succeeded it and all this will condition the way I feel during the moment I hear the music. The same music will be associated with very different memory associations for another person and although we are listening to the same music, the experience for that person at the same time could be totally different. Every sensory input causes arousal of a host of past experiences and responses, some conscious and others unconscious and determines the manner in which we perceive and interpret the sensory input. In this way perceptions produced by the same stimulus are unique to that person.

I think the same applies to phenomena which are yet to be fully explained by Science. I don’t think many will doubt the existence of the Moon and the mechanism of an eclipse as the evidence is irrefutable but when we ask a question such as, “Is there a God?”, we cannot expect a straight consistent answer from every person that question is asked because in the absence of proof, the acceptability of such a notion would be influenced by that person's background (all the factors I have referred to above). Furthermore,  there are different concepts of God. (a very common error when people “argue”, is that very few define what they are debating before they start!). There is God and there is God! An all-powerful super-being who created everything and loves everybody unconditionally (the humanistic more New Testament type), or an all-powerful super-being who created everything and picks and chooses people to favour and “better keep on his good side as he is quite capable of being nasty, really nasty, but if you accept him and have faith in him, he is absolutely fantastic!” (The Old Testament type, the Islamic type).

Personally, my own sense of logic does not allow me to accept and be comfortable with either of the two types of God referred to but I do know that if I was brought up as a Christian and a particular model was drilled into me, it is quite possible that I would have accepted one or the other model of God, - which brings me to rebirth, as that is the model in which I was brought up as a Buddhist.

The only reason why I am somewhat agnostic about rebirth is that I read widely on case histories where reputable, serious sceptical investigators investigated cases of recollection of past births and found the details given about that alleged past life correct in every detail, beyond chance and with no evidence of fraud. Western experts call it “unexplained persistence of memories of a past existence” with the statement that “rebirth or reincarnation is offered by some Asian religions” as a possible explanation.

When I put my Science hat on, rebirth seems utterly impossible and borders on the ridiculous. There is no biological explanation and furthermore, it appears to go against the theory of Evolution, which Scientists (and most humans) accept as a fact and no longer a theory. If the Buddhist concept is true, a human can regress and be born as an animal, which is against Evolution.

You can see my problem. Logical thinking and science tell me it can’t happen but I am still left with some doubts for the reasons I gave (the cases of recollection of past births).

This brings me to what I think is a logical thought process. Just because if some observed phenomenon has no current scientific explanation, it should not be discarded only for that reason. The correct approach would be to first investigate it thoroughly and make sure it is not a hoax or fake. If all the evidence points to indisputable data, then the conclusion is that this phenomenon has happened but we have currently no explanation for how it happens. Taking the example of recollection of a past life, quite a significant number turned out to be publicity seeking engineered falsehoods but there were instances which passed the test for a genuine observation. What I find unscientific is the attitude adopted by some scientists who investigated and found that the stories were genuine but nevertheless dismiss them by saying “it just can’t be true” or “they have somehow doctored this as it just can’t be true”. The proper conclusion should be that "A person recalled accurately details of the life of a person who has died, with no way of having obtained knowledge about that person, and we found the details to be correct. At present we have no scientific explanation for it”. That’s it, it is not “proof of rebirth but something which needs to be explained and not just dismissed, which, is the easy way out.

In many instances when a belief is tested, it boils down to this. What does your reasoning power indicate to you and what does any “inner consciousness or voice tell you” after critically analysing the problem? They may say the same or possibly the "inner voice" may suggest that your reasoning is faulty. Whenever that happens I would suggest that a sensible approach would be, whatever it tells you, to ask "is it compatible with what I believe is the proper way to live on this Planet to achieve happiness and Peace of mind?" If it is, it is unlikely to have harmful effects. If the answer is, "no, it would not", then that belief should be discarded.  For example, If your inner voice says “he is a heathen, kill him”, I am not advocating that you should go ahead and kill him! On the other hand, if the voice says "there is a God who loves me and all living beings", surely no harm can result.

It is my belief that morality is an evolved characteristic. Animals who roamed the Planet on their own without caring for other animals had a greater chance of not surviving. Or conversely, those who grouped together and supported each other increased their chance of survival. Cooperation, supportive behaviour, sharing and such beneficial characteristics enabled species to survive. Survival of the fittest as stated in the Theory of Evolution is one of the most misunderstood, misstated theories. Those who misunderstand say that it promotes selfishness. I say it is quite the contrary. Based on this ongoing beneficial behaviour pattern, Man has succeeded but as you would expect, not every individual man will display it but as a group, as a tribe, this moral behaviour has made us advance. It is still survival of the fittest, and the best way to survive is through cooperation.

My dear friend, what matters, in the end, is the comfort in your mind (and Body). Live a healthy lifestyle, do believe in God if it helps you and knowing you, if you do believe, your model will be one of unbound Love and Care for ALL and not just for those who believe in Him and accept him. If you truly believe in such a Power, you will do no harm and you will also not worry about Evangelism, or whether there is Rebirth or not, because His love is unbounded. A  lovely Christian friend I had (she is sadly no more), one of the best human beings I have known and who is sadly no more, told this to me when I asked her “Do you worry about the fact that your good friend Mahendra does not believe in God?”. “Mahendra dear, I know you extremely well and the kind of person you are and God will look after you whether or not you believe in Him”. If this is the way with all good God believers, the World will be a better place.

I wish I could believe in such a Force but I just cannot for the reason that for me, it does not fit with my own experience and understanding.

The very last point is if you do believe in some sort of life after death, then you may lean towards not just accepting just a “way of living well” now, in this life, but also taking steps to gain further insight and salvation through various practices such  as Meditation, prayers etc.in preparation for what follows death. The extreme position of this could be choosing a monastic life.

Well, that was a long rigmarole and thank you for your patience, if you read this far. Shall end by wishing you all the best and it is indeed a privilege to have you as my friend. In the end, after our basic needs for food, shelter, safety and good health are met, what matters most are not material possessions or power, but good friends and family living in a Society where people care for each other”.

Mahendra

Chandana and Suranganie Fernando celebrate 50 years of Marriage in March 2018

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY - how survival of the fittest is misunderstood. It is my belief that morality is an evolved characteristic. Animals who roamed the Planet on their own without caring for other animals had a lesser chance of survival. Or conversely, those who grouped together and supported each other increased their chances of survival. Cooperation, supportive behaviour, bonding, sharing and such beneficial characteristics enabled a species to survive. Survival of the fittest as stated in the Theory of Evolution is one of the most misunderstood, misquoted theories. Those who misunderstand say that it promotes selfishness. I say it is quite the contrary. Based on this ongoing beneficial behaviour pattern, Man has succeeded but as you would expect, not every individual man will display this characteristic but as a group, as a tribe, this moral behaviour has made us advance. It is still survival of the fittest, and the best way to survive is through cooperation. The "fit" know that to be "selfish" is counterproductive

Mahendra's Musings - Part 7. Thoughts on "Destiny"

Thoughts on Destiny

The Oxford Dictionary defines destiny as “The events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future”.

This implies that the future is mapped out and is just waiting to happen. “It will necessarily happen also imply that we have no control over the event that is “destined” to happen. We can look at this in different ways. Is this true? Is it an established fact? If it is indeed true, does it make ambition, effort, diligence, dedication all meaningless? The answer from a person who believes in destiny probably would be that it is already your destiny that you would indeed apply those attributes! It appears a “no-win, not-lose” argument. In other words, destiny is something that you recognise only after it happens.  Unless a claim is made that destiny can be accurately predicted. The claim can be made before it occurs and tested for accuracy. I would feel that this sort of speculation is unhelpful.

Looking at “destiny” more seriously, it seems improbable that a “play” can be enacted on such a vast stage (just confining myself to Planet Earth) involving billions of people, not to mention animals, plants and other “things” and occurrences.

So where do I stand as regards Destiny?

I don’t believe that the World and all its players are programmed beforehand and that the future is just a continuation of the video-tape currently playing that has already been made.

Although it is not possible to bring in other belief systems such as Religion and God, rebirth and karma, “designed universe” and others who claim the future can be foretold such as astrologers, those possessed by spirits etc, let us leave them aside and look at Destiny from a purely scientific approach.

The first thing to state is that Science cannot support destiny as defined above. But if the meaning of destiny is broadened to include the prediction of possible events that may occur in the future, then indeed it is possible to talk about possibilities and probabilities, which of course is wholly different from the belief that the future is already determined.

If we take an individual and speculate on his/her future, these are some of the factors which may help in predicting some of his/her life events in the future.

1.      His genes.(His= his/her)

2.      The environment in which he was nurtured.

3.      His education.

4.      His immediate social circle.

5.      His personality

6.      His hobbies and past times.

7.      His likes and dislikes, diet, lifestyle

8.      His physical and ethnic characteristics

9.      His beliefs

10.   His health status.

11.   The country in which he is resident.

You can see that there are whole host of factors that will influence his future but in no way can we map out exactly what would happen to him as he goes on living.

Examples of predictions

A heavy smoker is likely to develop lung cancer.

A child growing up in an inner-city environment is more likely to be involved in crime.

A child born in a poor African state is less likely to achieve adulthood.

A careless motorist is more likely to be involved in an accident.

A more complex prediction like life expectancy can be made by combining all above factors but it always remains a prediction governed by probability and is never absolute.

I think you get the gist.

In answer to the question, ”What is your destiny?” answers can be only given with varying degrees of accuracy according to probability. Even where the predictive accuracy is high, it is not certain. For example, if you are a male carrying the Huntington gene, you are 100% sure of developing the disease but you may not live long enough to get it and how long you live is unknowable.

The only practical way to look at Destiny is in a broad sense as what the future may hold for you, and to take action in the present time which will either have a high probability of achieving a good outcome or lower the probability of reaching a bad one.,

As a student be diligent and apply yourself to your studies.

As an adult, manage your finances properly; be insured, have some savings etc.

For all humans, the advice is to live a healthy lifestyle.

And any more common sense ways of applying what we know about prevention in all aspects of your life.

If one brings Religion into this discussion, other aspects of how to lead your life in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome will arise. There are common elements, but widely differing ones too.

To believe that everything is destined to happen and you have no control whatsoever would surely make life very uncertain, almost paradoxically, and make you unhappy, fearful and probably devoid of satisfaction, whereas belief in no such thing as destiny is likely to make your life more meaningful and also give you a sense of having some control over your life.

Before I leave the subject, I must refer to the closely allied concept of Determinism. It is defined as “the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.”

To me, it follows that if you believe in determinism, you would accept destiny. Determinism takes control out of you and it accepts external causes outside our control as what determines outcomes. Yet determinism is not the same as causality, i.e., every action (cause) is followed by a predictable outcome (reaction). Determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causation. Everything that happens is the only possible thing that could happen. The chains and networks of causes are so powerful and inexorable that every outcome is inevitable. That is determinism.

How about fatalism? Very close to determinism but not the same. If you believe in determinism, you believe that your whole life follows a set path because every action results in a certain outcome and life is such a series of events which you have no control over. The fatalist is in agreement with the determinist in that both agree that the ultimate result or end or “fate” is the same, but the fatalist believes that we can take different paths but the ultimate result, is our destiny. In other words, they agree that the final destiny is the same, but the path could be different. The fatalist is concerned with the ultimate end which cannot be changed, e.eg, you will die at the age of 50 and that is fixed, whatever you do, whereas the determinist will map out in more detail exactly how you will die at the age of 50.

Fatalism usually implies the acceptance of a Supreme Power or God or Gods, who ultimately decide our fate. We cannot go against his (their) wishes however much we try, whereas determinism, although still compatible with a belief in god in one sense, does not necessarily imply acceptance of a god. People, who saw that the natural world seemed to operate according to fixed laws, noted that people were part of this natural world, and therefore proposed that people--including the inner workings of our minds, desires, "choices", and so on--also operated according to fixed laws.  A strict determinist does not believe in true choice whereas a Fatalist believes he has choices but whatever choice he makes, the ultimate outcome is out of his control and decided by God(s).

The Reader is left with the choice of examining the arguments and deciding for himself/herself which would be the most fruitful approach to a better life. The eternal problem, however, is to overcome limitations brought about by being locked into a belief system which acts as that “person inside your head” who keeps telling you that “what matters is not what you like to believe by logical argument. What matters is the TRUTH! And I am telling you what it is”!.

Mahendra

08/02/2018

What does it really mean to accept Buddhism? Mahendra's Musings Part 6

What does it really mean to accept Buddhism?

I was tempted to embark on this monologue after a discussion I had with a much respected and valued colleague a few days ago. It arose after I made a statement that you have to practise meditation if you call yourself a Buddhist. He hotly contested this and stated that nowhere in the Buddhist text is this so stated. He did not accept the arguments I put forward and I now wish to “state my case” on my Blog so that I could share my ideas with friends and colleagues.

In my view, what the Buddha taught was a solution to a problem which he recognised as Universal. This is big, he is talking about ultimate Truths and not just a recipe for a happier life. When he stated what is known as the Four Noble Truths, it was a solution which he developed purely through introspection and reflection. This is very different from traditional evidence-based theories which could be verified through experiment. Buddhism is very experiential and cognitive.

The first noble truth is that there is Dukkha (loosely translated as suffering, or more appropriately unsatisfactoriness) in this World and this is the main reason why we can never experience lasting and permanent happiness in this World. If this is not accepted as true, there is absolutely no point in going further into the doctrine unless it is just from curiosity or as an intellectual exercise. It is not my intention to speak for the proposition and outline the case for Dukkha. 

If the first truth is accepted even provisionally (“tell me more, I am interested”), then the second and third truths follow naturally. The second being the truth on the origin of dukkha and the third being that it is possible to end suffering. The Final or fourth truth is the Truth of how to stop suffering, which is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path (itself  in three parts of 2,3 and 3 items for each part).(Wisdom  or Panna, Virtue or Sila and Concentration or Samadhi)

If the four truths are accepted as a reasonable working hypothesis, then the scientific materialists will ask the natural question, “what is the evidence that this is true?”. The first 3 truths could appeal conceptually to a lot of people by just applying to their own life events and concluding that it seems a reasonable hypothesis. The whole approach is very familiar to me as a Doctor as this is exactly what  I would do with a patient.That is, look at the symptoms, determine the causes after reaching a diagnosis and then prescribe the medicine.

A lot of questions will arise even at this stage. What is happiness? Who am I and are we discussing my future happiness or my current happiness or both? Does this teaching require the acceptance that death is not the end and that there is something beyond? If one accepts that death is not the end, then what are we referring to as a continuation in some form after death? Are we composed of a physical body and soul and is it being said that the soul soldiers on from one body to another? How is this compatible when Buddhism apparently also states that there is no permanent unchanging immutable soul?  Are the rewards of a Buddhist life directed to an afterlife or can results be experienced in this life?  Again, this is not the place to expand on these very important questions.

 A person who studies Buddhism in depth and wishes to decide on whether the message as stated by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold path is the way forwards can follow several lines of thinking.

     (1)  He does not see any merit in the Buddhist theory and discards it.

(2)    He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification. He seeks no further clarification and follows the Path or some elements of the Path (He refers to He/She).

(3)    He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification but also accepts that reflective introspection and concentrated inward thinking could sharpen his mind giving him the ability to self-realise what the truth is. This is a big step away from how we usually acquire knowledge and formulate theories. The Western approach is looking out of ourselves and the idea that we have a mind with inherent powers to “see” things and understand what happens around us and “awaken” is new, although not totally, as some of the great scientific thinkers such as Einstein probably could have experienced it. Debatable? Yes of course. It is indeed a Mind-body-brain problem. At this stage, it is just a faith that such practice will enable him to see the truth, and he is willing to train his mind and to see for himself whether this happens. He accepts on faith that he has the potential. He looks at it like somebody who is told that in order to see the stars, he needs a telescope and provided he puts in the required effort, he can acquire it and then see the stars. No amount of reading and “education” will give him that telescope.

(4)    He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification but also accepts that reflective introspection and concentrated inward thinking could sharpen his mind giving him the ability to self-realise what the truth is. At this stage, it is just a faith that such a practice will enable him to see the truth, and he is willing to train his mind and to see for himself whether this happens. He accepts on faith that he has the potential. He looks at it like somebody who is told that in order to see the stars, he needs a telescope and provided he puts in the required effort, he can acquire it and then see the stars. No amount of reading and “education” will give him that telescope. But unlike the previous example, he also understands that the deep understanding and awakening he is seeking cannot occur by meditation or “Bhavana” (more appropriate than meditation which is now loosely used to describe any kind of mental concentration exercise), alone. The 6th 7th  and 8th steps in the Path cover the aspect of Meditation but it is important to understand that the 8 steps in the Path are not sequential. They are intertwined and interconnected. The spiritual awakening promised by following the Path can occur only if all aspects are covered. One who has virtue and wisdom must also have Concentration; sila, samadhi are essential for the practice of panna). Unless this happens, although meditation will achieve mental states and understanding of different levels, which are “supernatural”, true awakening or enlightenment cannot occur. The person who meditates regularly and intensely, may experience glimpses of the Path but will after a variable length of time, come back to base but for the Enlightened one, it is a Path of no return, and what it is like to be in that state and “who “experiences it are beyond our human capacity to comprehend. But it is my understanding that the post enlightened state is not tantamount to "nothing". It is not nihilistic.

Now I come back to my theme. If you truly accept that Buddhism explains our existence and how unsatisfactory it is although there are temporary highs, and that death is not the end, and that there is permanent salvation by following the Noble Eightfold Path, then it is incumbent on you to follow it. If you truly believe in the Medicine that will cure you, isn’t it folly not to take it? Adherence to the Path and indulging in Mental training including meditative practices (6^th 7^th  and 8^th steps chiefly) because you have accepted that you have the innate capability to attain Enlightenment and escape forever from this existence (samsara) is what you would do if you truly accept the Buddhist solution. I call such a person a Type A Buddhist follower.

But there are other options.

You could accept the Buddhist solution purely through Faith, and not through self-realisation as above. You could adopt a more leisurely journey and have smaller expectations such as just a happier life in this existence, being better armed to deal with the inevitable problems and misfortunes that surely lie waiting and in the next birth, hope for a decent one in a good family. You will, therefore, lead a life adhering to the 5 precepts, the odd retreat and meditation session and basically a “good” moral life. Within you, you may even harbour the thought that “maybe in my next birth, I will be ready to tread the Path more assiduously”. This is a perfectly understandable attitude but not the one adopted by a person who really wants to achieve enlightenment and end this samsaric existence. I call this type of person a Type B follower

Ultimately, the problem I posed at the beginning and debated with my friend may be down to semantics. You may argue that both Type A and Type B are practising Buddhists and while Type B does not practise Meditative practices, he is still following Buddhist principles. My contention is that you don’t even need to be a Buddhist if your expectations are limited and you are not actively seeking enlightenment, which the Buddha says, is possible to attain in this existence.

I  am reminded of a sermon I heard recently at the Buddhist Vihara in Manchester. The venerable priest posed the question, "as a Buddhist, what should be your aim?". His answer was "Nirvana".

Mahendra

29^th January 2018.

Manchester. UK