
                    BUDDHISM AS A PRACTICAL TEACHING
  
                                   by
                           H. L. Seneviratne
                    University of Virginia (U.S.A.)
  
                         Bodhi Leaves No. B 87


              Copyright 1981 Buddhist Publication Society

                      BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
                      KANDY              SRI LANKA

                                 * * *

                         DharmaNet Edition 1995


                     Transcription: Jim McLaughlin
                      Proofreading: Jane Yudelman
                        Formatting: John Bullitt

        This electronic edition is offered for free distribution
            via DharmaNet by arrangement with the publisher.

                        DharmaNet International
                 P.O. Box 4951, Berkeley CA 94704-4951

                                          
                            * * * * * * * * 


  Revised from an address delivered at the annual Vesak meeting of the
  Buddhist Vlhara in Washington D.C., on May 13, 1979



                    Buddhism as a Practical Teaching
  
  Buddhism is a vast and complex subject and volumes have been written
  on its many aspects. Any subject so vast can be interpreted in
  different ways by different people. Some could emphasize certain
  aspects of the teaching and de-emphasize or ignore altogether other
  aspects. Ultimately each person has his own understanding of Buddhism.
  In this paper my intention is to try to convey to you my own
  understanding of the relevance of Buddhism for worldly existence,
  especially urban existence.
  
      We can say that there are two broad perspectives in understanding
  Buddhism or any other great message or philosophy. The first is a more
  or less literary understanding of the sacred texts as the total truth.
  This is the approach of the unquestioning believer. The second might
  be called the contextual approach whereby the teaching is related to a
  particular socio-historical context. In this approach, the words of
  the teacher are not taken as absolutes. Instead they are understood in
  the context in which they were spoken, and in terms of such questions
  as to whom and under what circumstances. Such an approach also
  implicitly looks at the teacher as an analytically and
  practically-minded person and not as a divinely inspired prophet. This
  approach is particularly suitable to the study of Buddhism because the
  Buddha is unique among the founders of great religions to insist that
  he was human and not divine, or divinely inspired. In this paper I
  adopt this second approach.
  
      My theme is selected from the very center of Buddhism. It is the
  question of mental peace and tranquility, the ultimate version of
  which is Nirvana. I would like to suggest that the search for such
  ultimate tranquility is full of meaning and relevance also for
  proximate tranquility, or peace of mind here and now. In other words,
  I would like to suggest that the Buddhist teaching is not oriented
  towards the release from Samsara alone: and that it offers help and
  solace for the sorrows of the mind here and now, in our present
  existence. Before coming to the relevance of Buddhism for urban life
  which is emphasized in this paper, it is necessary to address
  ourselves to the large question of its relevance to mundane existence
  in general. This is necessary because it is sometimes claimed, both by
  critics of Buddhism and by certain scholars, that Buddhism is only
  concerned with the spirit, with salvation, and with the other world;
  and that it has no interest in, or orientation to, human existence
  here and now; and therefore it is not useful to us in our daily lives.
  Such a view was expressed by German sociologist Max Weber. Because of
  his pre-eminent position as a great exponent of social thought, many
  of his followers have blindly accepted this view, and written long
  treatises using as a basic premise the idea that Buddhism is
  indifferent to the social, political and economic world. Writing on
  what he called "ancient Buddhism," Weber says, "it is a specifically
  unpolitical and anti-political status religion, more precisely, a
  religious 'technology' of wandering and intellectually-schooled
  mendicant monks." Weber thought that Buddhism has no concern with
  society here and now, and that its only concern is the ultimate
  concern of "blowing out," or extinguishing the self. This is an
  extreme view of Buddhism, and we find no basis for such views in the
  available historical facts of early Buddhism. Why, then, did Weber
  hold such a view? It is because the sources from which he learnt about
  Buddhism were second-hand sources, written in English or German by
  writers who emphasized certain doctrines and left out the social and
  political background. These writers wrote in this way because they
  were reacting to the theistic doctrines of their own cultures which
  they found unacceptable, and were idealizing the rationality of the
  Buddhist quest. In the process they forgot the human and social con-
  tent of early Buddhism.
  
      Critics of Buddhism have similarly, without adequate knowledge of
  the background, considered Buddhism to be selfish and lacking in a
  positive attitude to contemporary existence. They have considered
  Buddhism to be concerned with private salvation alone. It is
  sufficient to say that this cannot be true for the reason that a basic
  premise of Buddhism is //anatta//, or the rejection of the theory of
  an individual soul.
  
      Study of the Buddhist sources themselves -- rather than second
  hand sources -- make it quite clear that the Buddhist teaching is not
  concerned with the destiny of the individual, but the whole realm of
  being, which inevitably encompasses social and political matters.
  These matters receive copious attention in the teachings of the Buddha
  as represented in the early Buddhist texts.
  
      A review of the social context of the rise of Buddhism and its
  early history by reference to the Buddhist texts themselves, will show
  us that Buddhism, from its inception, was concerned with social and
  political matters as much as it was concerned with the discipline of
  the mind with a view to ultimately breaking the chain of causation
  that binds men to Samsaric existence.
  
      The time of the Buddha was a time of considerable significance
  from the point of view of political evolution. It was a time when
  society was experimenting with a new form of government -- monarchy.
  The existing form of government was republican and the time of the
  Buddha was a time of transition when both types existed side by side.
  Some, like the Shakyan republic to which the Buddha was born, were at
  that time exhibiting features of both forms; they were in an advanced
  stage in the transition to monarchy. The expanding monarchies were a
  threat to the continuity of the republics. An equally dangerous threat
  to them was feuding among themselves.
  
      The republics were located in the middle of the Gangetic plain in
  a line that stretched from northwest to southeast. They were the
  republics of the Shakyas, Koliyas, Moriyas, Mallas and Vajjis. All
  these names are familiar to anyone with even a faint acquaintance with
  Buddhist literature -- either the canonical literature or the
  non-canonical works such as the Jataka stories. The Vajjian republic
  was a loose confederation consisting of such republics as the
  Licchavis, Videhas and Mallas.
  
      The republics were governed by the elders of the tribal groups
  that constituted them. Discussion was the method used in making
  decisions. The leaders met regularly in an assembly known as the
  Sangha. The Buddha seems to have organized his monastic order on these
  same lines in which discussion and argument were the basis of
  decisions: as we all know, his monastic order was known by the same
  name -- Sangha. Since the republican assembly or Sangha was the core
  of their organization the republics were themselves known as Sanghas.
  These were by no means democracies. The elders were not elected
  representatives. They were the leading men of the tribe.
  
      We noted that the monarchies were expanding at the expense of the
  republics. We cannot go into the complex reasons why this was so.
  Although the Buddhist Sangha itself was organized on republican
  principles, the Buddha seems to have thought pragmatically and
  impartially of the monarchy. Perhaps he may have considered an
  enlightened and powerful monarchy sympathetic to his teaching to be
  useful in facilitating the spread of the doctrine. This may be the
  reason why the Buddha maintained close association with the important
  monarchs of the time. Pasenadi, the King of Koshala, and Bimbisara,
  the King of Magadha, were close friends and ardent supporters of the
  Buddha. We read in the literature that Pasenadi visited the Buddha
  frequently to have discussions with him. It was at Shravasti, the
  capital of Pasenadi's kingdom that the Buddha delivered the majority
  of his discourses. Similarly, King Bimbisara, ever since he first met
  the Buddha, was a firm supporter of the Buddha and Sangha. Now, if we
  pause for a moment to remember that these two kingdoms -- Koshala and
  Magadha -- covered most of the lower Gangetic plain, it becomes clear
  that the Buddha was directly and closely in contact with the two most
  important political centers of the time. These two kings -- Pasenadi
  and Bimbisara -- who were the Buddha's disciples, asked him for advice
  not only on religious and moral matters but also on political and
  social matters.
  
      The //Maha Parinibbana Sutta// gives a dramatic example. Bimbisara
  was no longer the King of Magadha. His son, Ajatasatru had ascended
  the throne. Ajatasatru is about to wage war against the Vajjian
  republic to the north of his kingdom, across the river Ganges. He
  sends a messenger to the Buddha, who was at that time residing at
  Rajagriha, the capital of Magadha, asking for advice. The Buddha's
  words to the messenger sum up the source of the strength of the
  republican form of government. His words were that so long as the
  Vajjians continue to observe their traditions properly and to meet
  regularly in their republican assembly seeking agreement in all
  matters, so long as they honor their elders and maintain their
  customary rites and ceremonies as a republic, no harm can be done to
  them. The messenger interpreted this to mean that the Vajjians cannot
  be militarily defeated but they could be destroyed as a political
  entity by the subversive means of creating internal strife and
  dissension, that is, by destroying the essential republican principle
  of agreement and concord. (Incidentally, this may be the reason why
  creation of dissension among the Sangha is considered one of five
  heinous crimes, //anantarya karma//, in Buddhism.) Indeed, soon
  afterwards, dissension tore apart the Vajjian republic and Ajatasatru
  was able to annex it to the Magadhan Kingdom. The Buddha's statement
  was an astute political observation. This is not surprising because
  the Buddha as Prince Siddhartha was brought up to be a ruler, and by
  the time he renounced lay life he was already well trained in
  statecraft and the military arts, like any other heir to a kingdom at
  that time, So the Buddha was undoubtedly familiar with the concerns of
  government and it is unlikely that he would have lost all interest in
  it, especially in view of his close association with kings and other
  political leaders. Even the most artistic or poetic dreamer has an
  idea of what society and polity should be -- that is, has a theory of
  society and political organization, and we all know that the Buddha
  was no dreamer.
  
      It indeed appears that the Buddha gave careful thought to
  monarchical and republican forms of government. As we noted, he
  actively associated with kings, but his own Sangha, the monastic
  order, he decided to organize on the basis of the original Sanghas or
  republics. As we noted, the source of strength of the republican form
  was expressed in the Buddha's evaluation of the Vajjian republic. That
  source of strength was frequent meeting and reaching agreement on
  matters relating to government. So, agreement or concord is considered
  the basis of the Sangha. Even today communities of Buddhist monks,
  despite organizational elaboration of modern times, preserve the idea
  of agreement or concord, as seen in such terms as //natti//
  (resolution) and //sammuti// (agreement) used in monastic
  deliberations.
  
      So, the Buddhist Sangha is organizationally very different from a
  monarchy. Whereas for lay society the Buddha seems to have considered
  righteous kingship as the suitable form of government, for his own
  community of disciples he rejected the principle of personal rule. The
  impression we get is that the Buddha weighed realistically the two
  organizational forms and rejected the one in favor of the other as
  the basis of organization of the Sangha. This is a decision that
  illustrates realistic concern with social order and forms of
  government, rather than an ascetic indifference to the political
  affairs of men.
  
      From these large issues of political and social order, if we come
  down to matters on the other end of the spectrum, such as the affairs
  of the householder, the Buddha expressed equal knowledge and interest.
  A good example is found in the text dealing with the question asked by
  the young householder Sigala, who asks the Buddha for advice regarding
  his moral duties. The answer given by the Buddha is comprehensive. It
  shows that Buddhism was neither other-worldly nor solely spiritual nor
  selfish. Since this advice is so detailed it is sometimes referred to
  as the Vinaya for the householder, implicitly comparing it to the
  elaborately detailed code of conduct laid down by the Buddha for the
  monkhood.
  
      So far, I have tried to show that early Buddhism, contrary to
  certain opinions, showed ample concern for and knowledge of society
  here and now. Let us now narrow down this same perspective to bring
  out the special significance of Buddhism for urban life in general and
  especially for the life of the large, busy and competitive modern city
  which most of us have chosen as our home.
  
      Any significant and complex creation of the human mind, such as a
  philosophy, a theory, or an invention, comes into being due to two
  broad factors. One is undoubtedly the creativity, the genius, of the
  mind that conceived it. Very often we are content with emphasizing
  this factor alone. There is no doubt that all due credit must go to
  the creator of an idea. But we must not forget that there is another
  factor. This factor is the times, the environment, or the state of
  thinking in the context of which the new theory or philosophy appears.
  If we think for a moment of the field of science, it is easy to
  realize that theory could not come into being except for the existing
  theory or theories which the new theory is replacing. This is what we
  mean by the expression that a given thinker stands on the shoulders of
  his predecessors. This is so even if the thinker rejects his
  predecessors, because rejection of a theory is often only partial and
  there is always a corner of the foundation of the demolished theory on
  which the new theorist can build profitably. Indeed, by the
  advancement of knowledge we mean nothing but the partial replacement
  of old theories by new ones. But the new theories are possible only
  because old theories were there for the new theories to demolish. The
  physics of Einstein was made possible, because the physics of Newton
  was already there. We say science is cumulative.
  
      When we come from the physical and natural sciences to the social
  sciences and philosophies, it is abundantly clear that theories or
  philosophies arise -- without forgetting individual genius -- not only
  from pre-existing knowledge, but even more demonstrably, from the
  social and economic environment. For example, I do not think you would
  quarrel with me if I were to say that //Das Kapital//, the great work
  of Karl Marx, could not have been written in ancient India or Greece
  or even in Medieval Europe. We can indeed say that //Das Kapital//
  could have only been written in a post-industrial European country
  which had established a certain type of production relations. We are
  making a similar statement when we say that Hobbes' //Leviathan//, is
  a justification of the nation-state and its armed guardian, the
  absolute monarch. There is no great work dealing with man and his
  society that cannot be partially explained with reference to its
  social origin.

      If we adopt a truly inquiring spirit we must look at the Buddhist
  doctrine, which is a philosophy of man, society, and of human destiny,
  in the same way, that is, we must partially understand it in relation
  to the social, political and economic environment in which it came
  into being. What was the nature of this environment?

      About the time of the Buddha there was an increase in agricultural
  activity in the area, that is, the middle Gangetic plain. This means
  the opening up of forest land for agriculture. A clear result of this
  kind of change is demographic change. With nomadic peoples, population
  density is low. But with extensive cultivation, a given area can
  support -- especially with rice cultivation -- a much higher density.
  The pastoral diet of meat and milk also would have been replaced by
  rice which we today associate with higher human fertility. This would
  have in turn given rise to opening up of more land, and this process
  seems to have given rise in some areas to an urban pattern of social
  life. By the time of the Buddha several big cities, such as Shravasti,
  Saketa, Kaushambi, Kashi (Varanasi), Rajagriha and Champa were already
  in existence. Further, there was a whole constellation of smaller
  cities such as Kapilavastu, Vesali, Mithila, and Gaya. These cities
  and towns were centers of industry and trade. They had guilds of
  wood-workers, iron-workers, leather-workers, painters, ivory-workers
  and so on. These guilds seem to have been organized bodies with
  effective control over their membership -- like trade unions. The
  cities were also political and administrative centers. They were busy
  places because of either their strategic location or their proximity
  to some natural resource such as iron-ore. From these facts we can
  infer that these cities had developed a style of life that is distinct
  from that of the rural areas. In addition to being political and
  business centers, these cities were centers of learning; and they also
  supported typically urban forms of entertainment such as theatre,
  dance, singing, gambling, alcohol, and prostitution. In other words,
  they had developed some of the characteristic features of city life
  that we have today, in our own cities.
  
      I have referred to the two forms of government -- monarchist and
  republican -- and noted that this was a period of transition from
  republicanism to monarchy. That is, the republican form was in
  decline. It is of great interest to look at the causes of this
  decline, and we have no better analysis than the Buddha's evaluation
  of the chances of survival of the Vajjian republic which we have
  already referred to. The Buddha's words were that if the Vajjians
  respected their elders, if they held the customary republican rites,
  if they met regularly and reached agreement, then their republic would
  be invincible. In sum, the republic would survive so long as there was
  agreement and concord. This statement is a clue to an important social
  process that was taking place, because the Vajjian republic was soon
  vanquished, not so much by the enemy's sword, but by the internal
  dissension of its elite, that is by lack of agreement, lack of
  concord. What does this mean? What is the meaning of the absence of
  concord? It can only mean one thing -- that the individual will had
  triumphed over the collective will, over agreement, over concord. When
  there was concord there was a suppression of the individual will in
  favor of the collective will. When concord ceased to exist, the
  individual will was set free to assert itself in competition with each
  other. Republicanism gave way to monarchy where individuals claimed
  private authority in their own relatively higher or lower status
  positions. So, we seem to be confronted with a set of interrelated
  factors -- the increase of population, the rise of urbanism and the
  rise of individualism. These are classic features of a syndrome that
  could bring about social turmoil, dislocation and confusion referred
  to by sociologists as //anomie//, a state in which the norms of
  society are called into question, giving rise in the individual
  members of the society to a heightened sense of dislocation, isolation
  and anxiety. These are characteristic problems of our own urban
  civilization today, for which we as a society seek remedy in various
  rehabilitative and preventive programs, and as individuals in therapy
  and stimulative or antidepressive medicines which we are told from
  time to time, could be harmful. It is with this picture of the social
  background in mind that we must return to our discussion on the rise
  of Buddhism. When we do so we can see how Buddhism provided & soothing
  remedy for the society's dislocations and confusions. We can see
  Buddhism as a response to this social illness. It is tempting to refer
  to some of the early sculptures where the Buddha is depicted as
  //bhesajja guru// or a doctor who cures the ills of the world.

      Certain Buddhist myths of origin of private property express with
  particular clarity the ills of individualism. According to one of
  these myths, in the beginning there was an idyllic state when a
  self-generating and exquisite variety of rice sprang from the earth
  and was freely available to everyone. The earth was made of sugar. So,
  two of the commodities that people from oriental countries love --
  rice and sugar -- were freely and abundantly available. It was common
  property. There was no notion of individual ownership. Suddenly, greed
  or the desire for individual ownership arose, that is, individualism
  emerged subjugating the common will and consent. And people started
  partitioning the earth and fencing plots of land as individually
  owned. As a mystical punishment for this greed, the rice stopped
  growing by itself and the earth lost its sugary taste. The idyllic
  state came to an end and ever since man had to till the soil, use
  fertilizer, sow the seed, reap the harvest, thresh it and do all kinds
  of other exacting tasks to earn a living. The moral of the story is
  very clear. Uncontrolled individual desire and greed had brought about
  misery.
  
      When we place the Buddhist doctrine into this context some of its
  ideas become more and more intelligible. For example, we can look at
  the doctrine of //anatta// or the "no-soul theory" as it is sometimes
  called. Of all great religions Buddhism alone denies the existence of
  a private, individual soul. Indeed, the entire effort of the Buddhist
  is to undermine and erode the idea of a permanent individual
  personality. If one were to consider the individualism of the urban
  society as an important cause of an increased sense of dislocation and
  anxiety among its members, it is no surprise that a remedial doctrine
  emphasizes the need to abandon the ego-centrism and the inordinately
  high evaluation of the individual. What would be a more effective way
  of doing this than by a philosophical denial that the individual
  exists?
  
      At this point we may digress into the Buddha's decision to
  organize his monastic order along non-individualist lines. We have
  discussed at some length the two alternative forms of social and
  political organization -- the monarchist and the republican. The
  monarchist form seems to have arisen, we noted, as a result of the
  subordination of the collective will and the rise of the individual
  will. We also noted that the Buddha may have considered an enlightened
  and righteous monarchy to be beneficial to the spread of the Dhamma.
  But as a form of social organization for his monkhood of disciples, he
  clearly preferred the republican form where the assertion of the
  individual will was given no place, and where agreement and concord,
  and therefore, the assertion of the collective will was given
  emphasis. In other words, by organizing the, monastic order as a
  non-authoritarian order, or as a Sangha, the Buddha seems to have
  expressed the idea that unbridled individualism was not a way to
  organize a society of persons in search of mental tranquillity.
  
      To return to our discussion of doctrinal concepts, we may look at
  //tanha// or attachment, one of the causes of suffering. Attachment
  could be for anything and when coupled with individualism, it would be
  greatly intensified, Because, the more you designate certain things as
  your own and no one else's, the more you expect it to be so, and the
  greater the anxiety in your attempt to protect and preserve that
  claim, and the greater the suffering when you lose it. On the other
  hand, if one could devalue the notion of 'mine', the notion of
  personal belongingness, one would develop an equanimity, which would
  shelter one from the anxiety of attachment.
  
      The fact that Buddhism in its social concern, was probably a
  response to urbanism is further seen if we reflect on the fact that
  the Buddha's teaching was mostly conducted in the cities. Except for
  the brief period in which he experimented with asceticism and the time
  he temporarily journeyed to the countryside, the Buddha lived in urban
  surroundings. It was near the great metropolitan center of Benaras
  that he expounded the //Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta//, the Setting in
  Motion of the Wheel of the Dhamma, popularly known as the First
  Sermon. From there he returned to Rajagriha, the capital of Magadha,
  another big city. We know from the information given in the discourses
  themselves that the vast majority of the discourses were delivered in
  the two big cities of Rajagriha and Shravasti. We can also infer that
  he resided mostly in the city of Shravasti. He first went there at the
  invitation of the merchant and banker Anathapindika. Anathapindika
  first met the Buddha when he was on a visit -- very likely a business
  visit -- to Rajagriha where the Buddha was residing at the time. When
  Anathapindika returned to his home city of Shravasti, he bought a
  piece of land at a very high price -- we know that real estate prices
  are high in big cities -- and built a suitable monastery in
  anticipation of the Buddha's visit. This monastery, or vihara, is the
  celebrated Jetavana, where the Buddha was to preach many discourses in
  the subsequent years. The Buddha spent twenty-five Vassa or rainy
  seasons at this vihara. Rajagriha, the capital of Magadha was then
  ruled by king Bimbisara who, as we noted, was a close friend of the
  Buddha. Even when the Buddha was living in Shravasti, he made frequent
  visits to Rajagriha. Many important discourses were delivered in
  Rajagriha, where there were eighteen large monasteries. That there
  were so many monasteries lends support to the view that the urban
  center was the fertile ground in which early Buddhism thrived.
  
      The city depicts in clear relief the cause of suffering -- a
  heightened sense of the individual and resulting desire. This causes
  confusions, anxieties and a sense of deprivation in day-to-day living.
  But this is not all. The same cause -- desire or //tanha//, according
  to Buddhist thought, results in ultimate suffering of continuing
  rebirth in Samsara. If desire is both the cause of suffering in this
  world and ultimate suffering as Buddhism understands it, that is
  continuing re-birth in Samsara, then our attempts to eradicate desire
  for the purposes of getting rid of Samsaric existence also should help
  us in getting rid of our confusions, anxieties and our sense of
  deprivation in //this// world, here and now.
  
      The Buddhist method of eradicating the cause of suffering is
  through mental discipline which will lead the practitioner to
  //upekkha// or equanimity. By equanimity we mean the ability to
  remain, as the Maha Mangala Sutta puts it, "...unshaken when touched
  by the way of the world." The "way of the world" is that there is both
  pleasure and pain in it. In our day-to-day life, when something
  pleasurable happens, we are thrilled and overjoyed; and when we have a
  painful experience we are greatly depressed. We react excessively to
  both experiences. Equanimity is the ability to remain unmoved either
  way and maintain a balanced outlook. This is the secret of happiness.
  This state can be reached according to Buddhism, only by achieving
  control over one's own mind through systematic meditation and
  concentration. Concentration is simply a technique of tying up the
  mind that otherwise runs wild.
  
      It is easy to intellectually understand that meditation will train
  our minds to //upekkha// or equanimity. I think we all understand
  this. But understanding is different from realization. Realization is
  difficult. To give an example, we all know that our minds get
  attracted to a thing of beauty, whether it is a beautiful creation, or
  a beautiful thing or a beautiful person. Similarly, we know that we
  are repelled by a thing that is ugly and unpleasant. This happens
  every time. We intellectually understand this. But that is not enough.
  To achieve equanimity we must realize that such attraction and
  repulsion is the way with the mind. But it can and should be brought
  under control. We must think of the mind as if it were something
  exterior to ourselves. Then it would be a phenomenon that we could
  objectively see. If we can achieve this state, we have achieved the
  ability to remain relatively calm and unmoved when confronted with the
  ways of the world. Then we would neither be unduly attracted by beauty
  nor unduly repelled by ugliness. That is a consummation devoutly to be
  wished.
  
      For the follower of the Dhamma, mental discipline shortens
  samsaric suffering. But it can also relieve us of anxiety here and
  now, because it trains our minds to achieve //upekkha// or equanimity
  in the face of worldly happenings. If so, it is a healthy alternative
  to professional therapeutic help or tranquilizing drugs for relieving
  our anxieties and stresses. When we look at Buddhism this way we have
  an answer to the sceptics -- Buddhist or non-Buddhist -- who do not
  believe in a life hereafter. If you succeed in disciplining your mind
  to achieve equanimity, then you have conquered yourself, and reached
  peace and tranquillity within yourself. Mental discipline is simply a
  piece of knowledge we have, a technique with which we may combat the
  restlessness, indiscipline and the lack of decorum of our minds, and
  the resulting states of anxiety and disturbance. One does not have to
  be a Buddhist or believer in re-birth to make use of that technique.
  It is a question of the existence of  problem and a way of solving it.
  It does not matter whether one is Buddhist, non-Buddhist, atheist or
  sceptic. Meditative technique is not a matter of faith, it is a matter
  of putting the technique to use. It is not an object of veneration, it
  is a method foe gaining one's own peace of mind. It is a road to
  tranquillity without tranquilizers. Although hermitages may be located
  in forests, it is no wonder that to-day meditation movements are urban
  phenomena, and the occupants of forest hermitages are not peasants
  but, most of the time, city people.
  
      The believer knows that meditation will stand him in good stead in
  his sojourns in Samsara. The sceptic -- if he trains his mind -- will
  reap the same benefits if it turns out that, contrary to his beliefs,
  re-birth is a fact, and he is reborn. If not, meditation would still
  bring him peace of mind here and now in this world. We can confidently
  echo the Sinhalese poet Alagiyavanna, the author of //Subhasita//,
  that "irrespective of whether there is another existence or not, it is
  not a bad idea to do good deeds."
  
                                 * * *


  Note: For some of the ideas expressed in this paper I wish to
        gratefully acknowledge the work of scholars such as B.G.
        Gokhale, T.O. Ling, F. Reynolds and S. J. Tambiah.

                            * * * * * * * *



                    THE BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
  
  The BPS is an approved charity dedicated to making known the Teaching
  of the Buddha, which has a vital message for people of all creeds.
  Founded in 1958, the BPS has published a wide variety of books and
  booklets covering a great range of topics. Its publications include
  accurate annotated translations of the Buddha's discourses, standard
  reference works, as well as original contemporary expositions of
  Buddhist thought and practice. These works present Buddhism as it
  truly is -- a dynamic force which has influenced receptive minds for
  the past 2500 years and is still as relevant today as it was when it
  first arose. A full list of our publications will be sent upon request
  with an enclosure of U.S. $1.00 or its equivalent to cover air mail
  postage.

  Write to:
  
       The Hony. Secretary
       BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
       P.O. Box 61
       54, Sangharaja Mawatha
       Kandy           Sri Lanka
       
  or
       
       The Barre Center for Buddhist Studies
       Lockwood Road
       Barre, MA 01005 USA
       Tel: (508) 355-2347

                            * * * * * * * *
                            
                         DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 TITLE OF WORK: Buddhism as a Practical Teaching (Bodhi Leaves No. B87)
 FILENAME: BODHI087.ZIP
 AUTHOR: H.L. Seneviratne
 AUTHOR'S ADDRESS:   c/o Buddhist Publication Society
 PUBLISHER'S ADDRESS: Buddhist Publication Society
                    P.O. Box 61
                    54, Sangharaja Mawatha
                    Kandy, Sri Lanka
 COPYRIGHT HOLDER: Buddhist Publication Society
 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 1981
 RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS: See paragraph below.
 DATE OF DHARMANET DISTRIBUTION: November 1995
 ORIGIN SITE: Access to Insight (http://world.std.com/~metta/index.html)

 The copyright holder retains all rights to this work and hereby grants
 electronic distribution rights to DharmaNet International. This work may
 be freely copied and redistributed electronically, provided that the file
 contents (including this Agreement) are not altered in any way and that it
 is distributed at no cost to the recipient. You may make printed copies of
 this work for your personal use; further distribution of printed copies
 requires permission from the copyright holder. If this work is used by a
 teacher in a class, or is quoted in a review, the publisher shall be
 notified of such use. See the title page of this work for any additional
 rights and restrictions that may apply.
                                            
 It is the spirit of dana, freely offered generosity, which has kept the
 entire Buddhist tradition alive for more than 2,500 years. If you find
 this work of value, please consider sending a donation to the author or
 publisher, so that these works may continue to be made available. May your
 generosity contribute to the happiness of all beings everywhere.
 
       DharmaNet International, P.O. Box 4951, Berkeley, CA 94704-4951

[end]
