Friends,

I am using this space for making a personal announcement that is very much a part of my Sajha life and which my well-wisher Sajha mates have been inquiring for several months already.

Well, my mini-novel Chaytna Nasakeko Chithiis finally published and a website dedicated to promote it is up and running.

- http://www.dkhadka.com/chithi

I have a long list of Sajhaites to thank. First and foremost, Echoes for an excellent web design and Shree for valuable guidance to web-illiterate person like me. Gokul-jee for a wonderful preface for the book which, let me give a preview, starts with the story of how it all started right here in Sajha some years ago.

I am donating the proceeds from the book to Help Nepal Network. And I have to thank Shirish for making that possible and helping me out in too many things.

I am also grateful to anonymous Sajha artists and models for their precious cooperation during my initial search for a design for the book.

Then all initial readers of the story for their encouragement and following up inquiries regarding its publication.

So, basically, in Sajha had my book it's birth pang and it would not have seen this day without Sajha.

I have been telling to all that Sajha has been a rewarding experience for me. This book is a living proof among many others I can produce.

Thank you Sajha mates ! Thank you Sajha !

Nepe

- http://www.dkhadka.com/chithi

Ok Nepe jyu.
Finally bought it.
hehe. Paypal kholna apthero apthero lagya thyo after goin thru a few credit card frauds.
But the book should arrive here in a few days, haina? I'm in Canada.
TT

TT-jee,

No you have not yet BOUGHT the book. You have only ORDERED it. There is a subtle difference. Once you PHYSICALLY possess the book you have ORDERED, then you can say you have BOUGHT it.

Effect of the discourse with Vishontar-jee. Hehehe.

But seriously, thank you.


*** *** *** *** *** ***


Vishontar-jee,

My reply to TT-jee above is also to a kind of prelude to my emphasis on the importance of ACCURACY in analytical job. I will come to that point shortly.

So, first of all, thank you so much for finally starting to serve us with Buddha's teachings. Starting with the fundamentals was so appropriate. I hope as you bring more we will have more material to discuss about.

As for this "fundamental" part, my first reaction would be- considering Buddha's own time, when prevalent religious dogma regarding acquiring knowledge, power and happiness was through invoking and pleasing IMAGINARY Gods, Buddha's SIMPLE and REALISTIC approach is mind-blowing, to say the least.

However, if we examine Buddha's thesis on it's own merit (not on the demerits of other religious teachings) and particularly in light of today's knowledge and, this one I emphasize extremely much, with the standard of accuracy, then I think they will turn out to be IMPERFECT and LIMITED.

Before taking specific cases, I would like to say something of a fundamental importance- my take on the source of IMPERFECTIONS in Buddha's teachings. When I say something like IMPERFECTION of Buddha's teachings, you must have realized how important is what I am going to say.

So here it is. Most of the things (qualities) Buddha talks about exist in gradation, in degrees, in quantities, in variability, in diversity and the most important of all in a form of COMPLEXITY. Buddha fails to take account of them, treats them as if all of them exist in exact and simple bi-form (yes/no, presence/absence, right/wrong, good/bad). Failure to take account of variability and lack of knowledge of complexity of the world on Buddha's part has led him to reach to many inaccurate conclusion and unnecessary recommendations. (A rather too strong claim on my part, however I intend to show how as we go along. So more discussion on this in future. For now let's focus on "Shil-->Samadhi-->Pragya" theory.)

I already explained in my earlier posting how a person with LESS THAN A PERFECT "discipline" but with a sense of MANAGEMENT of time can learn things perfectly provided he has sufficient INTELLIGENCE and a WILL to learn the given thing.

It is clear from this that a PERFECT "DISCIPLINE" is not essential for acquiring KNOWLEDGE. SMARTNESS (management of time) can compensate that. A perfect "discipline" is essential for nothing except for itself. I mean if you need to prove that you are in a perfect "discipline". For everything else, imperfect "discipline" might still do.

I will take a break here. More during future sessions.

Vishontar-jee, we don't have to spend too much time in this one. We can go to next one as you have promised.

Nepe

Nepe Dai,
Darshan!

You will get answers of all of your questions, have some patience! However, don't hesitate to raise the questions. I will not address them individually, you have to find them in my postings.

However, here is something I must address.

It is clear from this that a PERFECT "DISCIPLINE" is not essential for acquiring KNOWLEDGE

Depends on how much subtle knowledge you want! More you are disciplined, less disturbances you will find in your mind (more concentration) and your wisdom will be more penetrating. Very straight forward example is: To learn Biology you have to be more disciplined than to learn Farming. Higher degree of discipline cause higher concentration leads to highly penetrating knowledge.

To acquire the knowledge of subtal reality you have to have pure discipline; to acquire the knowledge of subtler reality you have to have purer discipline, and to acquire the knowledge of the subtalest reality, you must have ultra pure discipline. I will illustrate this in your language ie the language of science. Wait for it!

Have you ever imagined that the Buddha’s teaching will be this simple? Thousands of scholars all over the world are PhD holders in Buddhism. Hundreds of thousands of Books are dedicated to Buddha and his teaching. In fact, highest number of books published about a person in the world are of Buddha. How can I claim that Buddha’s teaching ends in one sentence???

Explore yourself with the tools of सिल (Discipline) समाधी (Awareness) प्रज्ञा (Wisdom).

Don't believe me, be skeptical, do some study and find yourself whether I am right or not!


Leo Tolstoy has summarized very important fact of nature in a single sentence.

All great ideas are simple

Indeed! All great ideas are simple. Nature made up the universe just by three fundamental particles ie electron, proton and neutron. Whatever we see in the universe is nothing more than the different combination of these three particles and their interaction. Isn’t this simple?

Electricity changed the face of the human civilization. How does it be generated is very simple. If a farmer replaces the grinding stone of his watermill by a magnetic bar, electricity gets generated. It’s that simple principally!

The miracle of digital world makes us spellbound. Don’t get surprised if I say all the miracles are generated from just six very simple objects.

1. Conductor: Nothing but a copper wire
2. Resistor: nothing but cheap coal.
3. Inductor: Nothing but coiled copper wire
4. Capacitor: nothing but two copper plates
5. Diode: Nothing but two impure pieces of sand
6. Transistor: nothing but three impure pieces of sand.

Can you imagine? These are the only things which control airplanes, rockets, and space crafts. These are the only things inside your computer, inside your cell phone, inside your TV, inside your MP3. All the miracles you see are caused by these six basic simple objects. Isn’t simplicity great?

It is said that the most difficult theory to understand is “The General theory of relativity”. Einstein developed this theory just to convince you that gravity can not move faster than light as he postulated that light is the fastest moving thing in the universes in his “Special Theory of Relativity”. Such a complicated theories gives only one simplemessage --- nothing beats the speed of light.

Recently scientists have developed a new theory called “the Theory of Everything”. It is called The String Theory as well. The main point of this theory is anything happening in the universe can be described by just two strings; open loop string (gravity) and close loop string (Rest). Can you believe the entire universe is this simple? I am one of the great admirers of the String Theory, it's a mathematical genius and I believe one day it will be proved.

Buddha delivered 84,000 discourses. Buddhist literature Tipithaka is like a library. Yet, the essence of his teaching ends in a simple single sentence.


Learn about yourself with the tools of सिल (Discipline) समाधी (Awareness) प्रज्ञा (Wisdom).


So, please don’t underestimate the simplicity.

Mistake:

Close loop string (gravity)

Open loop string (Rest)

What is Wisdom (प्रज्ञा)?
Wisdom is the most important factor out of three. It is very very important to understand what wisdom is in Buddha's teaching. Wisdom has the leading role in Buddha's teaching. Wisdom has a vast meaning but mostly the knowledge that comes through personal experience is called wisdom. प्रत्यक्ष ज्ञान -प्रज्ञा‍.

Wisdom (प्रज्ञा) is divided into three categories:

1. श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा- Knowledge that is gained through listening, reading, seeing etc.
2. चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा- Knowledge that comes through one’s own intellectual analysis.
3. भावनामयी प्रज्ञा- Knowledge that comes through one’s own experience.


श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा is not that powerful. You know many things (useful) from books, from TV, from Movies, from your friends, teachers and relatives. You don’t give importance to them and you forget them after sometime. This type of knowledge will not be helpful to you. This is very weak knowledge.

For example: You are reading my posting and you are learning about Buddhism. This knowledge is called श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा. This is the first step of knowledge. Most of the religious fundamentalists who have learned their scriptures by heart, and most of the learned people in the world lie in this category. These are bookish people, nothing more than a machine computer. They have a lot of recorded knowledge.

चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा is stronger. Once you hear or see or read, this time, you give importance to what you have heard, seen or read. You analyze it. You ask questions to yourself. Can this be true? Is this logical? Is this rational? If your intellect says this seems logical and rational, you accept it. This is intellectual understanding or intellectual knowledge. This is second stage of knowledge which comes through intellectual analysis.

For example: You are reading my postings and analyzing it. Can this be true? Is this rational? Is this logical? With your intellectual analysis if you understand; if you get convinced, such knowledge is called चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा. This type of knowledge is powerful than the first one; it may be helpful to you but it will not be able to rescue you when you are in danger. Instead it is dangerous; it might help to inflate your ego and kill you from inside. This is intellectual knowledge. Most of the intellectual people in the world lie in this category.

भावनामयी प्रज्ञा is the strongest knowledge. It will come to rescue you whenever you are in danger. It will always serve you as your servant. It is the knowledge that comes through your own experience. This is the final stage of the knowledge. After understanding things intellectually, you decide to experience it. You decide to test it. You decide to examine it. And whatever you learn through your own experience, will be highly powerful knowledge. नेपालीमा उखान छ – पढेर भन्दा परेर (experience) जनिन्छ। परेर जानिने ज्ञान नै - भावनामयी प्रज्ञा हो।

For example: After learning Buddha’s teaching from my postings and having convinced through your intellectual analysis, if you decide to practice and convinced through your own practice. That knowledge is called - भावनामयी प्रज्ञा.

श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा is the knowledge in words चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा is the knowledge in intellect and भावनामयी प्रज्ञा is the knowledge in action.

Knowledge always starts from श्रुत, listening, reading, watching. Wise people take it to next level चिन्तन, intellectual analysis and understanding. Wiser people take it to final level भावना, practice, experience.

The Buddha did not preach all that he knew from enlightment and practice. On one occasion while the Buddha was passing through a forest hee took a handful of leaves and said: "Dear Bhikkhus, what I have taught is comparable to the leaves in my hand. What I have not taught is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest."

In fact he taught what hee deemed was absolutely essential for one's purification making no distinction between an esoteric and exoteric doctrine. He was characteristically silent on questions irrelevant to his noble mission, such as How big is Universe? Is it finite/infinte? Is it eternal?

Buddhism no doubt accords with science, but both should be treated as parallel teachings, since one deals mainly with material truths while the Buddhism confines itself to moral and spiritual truths. The subject matter of each is different.

The Dhamma he taught is not merely to be preserved in books, nor is it a subject to be studied from an historical or literary standpoint. On the contrary, it is to be learnt and put into practice in the course of one's daily life, because without practice we cannot appreciate the Truth. The Dhamma is to be studied, and more to be practiced, and above all to be realized; immediate realization is its ultimate goal. As such the Dhamma is compared to a raft which is meant for the sole purpose of escaping from the ocean of birth and death (called Samsara).

Buddhism, therefore, cannot strictly be called a mere philosophy because it is not merely the "love of, inducing the search after, wisdom." Buddhism may approximate a philosophy, but it is very much more comprehensive.

Philosophy deals mainly with knowledge and is not concerned with practice; whereas Buddhism lays special emphasis on practice and realization.

Karmarana ji,
You have been using 'Buddhism' when you talk about Buddha.

From my limited understanding, Buddha taught only Dhamma, universal law of nature, the truth. He was not interested in sect and he never used words such as Buddhism when he was teaching Dhamma. So, Dhamma is pure, universal – anybody who practices get results here and now. Buddhism is sectarian and it involves rites and rituals from what we see. And, Buddha was never interested in rites and rituals because his teachings are scientific. All I'm saying is that Dhamma and Buddhism are not the same. Buddha taught Dhamma and Buddhism started long after Buddha.

In a way you are right. But remember, we quite loosely use Buddhism for Dhamma. However, there are many types of Buddhisms developed later on that of course practice various sets of rites and rituals.

Not to forget, prior to Buddha's period, there was no terms like Philosophy or Religion. Did Buddha established some kind of Religion. The answer is yes and no. Yes, because Buddha did established Monastries, Order, laid out certain rules to be practiced by monks in the Monastries, different sets of rules to be practiced by nuns, and for layman. That's why Buddha did started a Religion.

There is one subtle difference between other religions and Buddhism. In buddhism, there is no middle man between God and Laymen. In fact, Buddha didn't accept the notion of God, whereas all other religions do so. Often, monks are looked upon as priests or Fathers etc of other religions. Nope, Monks and Nuns are not the middle-men between God and laymen.

Here is another example from your book.

कुशा, the main character girl of your story, might have read about the dissection of Sun-Flower stalk. She might have seen the picture of the dissection and she might have read the procedure and rewrote in her practical sheet (to get initial signature). She might have understood the procedure (intellectual knowledge). However, she got so excited only when she successfully dissects the plant herself. She got skill through the practical knowledge. She can use this skill to human tissues if she becomes a doctor, and earn lot of money out of it.

Practical knowledge gives result. Practical knowledge has strength to change inside as well as outside world. Practical knowledge is भावनामयी प्रज्ञा. Rest two knowledge, श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा and चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा are for the preparation of entering to भावनामयी प्रज्ञा. They are pre-requisite of भावनामयी प्रज्ञा.

The first two wisdoms are the borrowed wisdoms. Somebody said to you (श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा) and you got convinced (चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा). If you just limited yourself to श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा and चिन्तनमयी प्रज्ञा, you get nothing out of it except a type of false satisfaction. When you talk to people with your borrowed knowledge, you may get few words of praise. This will keep you happy for few moment; a false happiness! Why false happiness? Because if your audience don’t praise you, you don’t get happiness, if they abuse you will get pain. Your happiness is completely in somebody else’s hand. This is why I told you these first two wisdoms can’t rescue you when you are in trouble.

If you are an engineer and know very well how to generate electricity but if you don’t generate electricity, you also have to live in darkness as other who doesn’t know anything about electricity. So, practical know is utmost importance.

I am sorry; I took so much time just to say that the practical knowledge is only knowledge that counts. If I use the word wisdom from now on, please understand it as भावनामयी प्रज्ञा, ie the practical knowledge ….knowledge through experience. This is the knowledge which Buddha talks about. This is the wisdom in the language of Buddha.

I sometime feel so shame to write big big things because I can’t practice them in my life. At times I feel shame to share borrowed knowledge. Again, I feel, hey, there could be people out there who can take advantage of my borrowed knowledge; after all things start from श्रुतमयी प्रज्ञा. How can they reach to भावनामयी प्रज्ञा if they don’t hear from someone? I also am not a man of just श्रुत and चिन्तन only. I also have practiced भावना as well even though it is little. I always have this type of conflict. At this time the conflict is at its height. I can’t write anymore until it gets settled. Please forgive me; for the time being I got to leave Sajha, if I return, I will start right from Here


Now I think it’s time to describe : सिल (Discipline) समाधी (Awareness) प्रज्ञा (Wisdom) in more detail.

Buddha divided these three into eight parts and told the path as -अरियो अठ्ठङगिको मग्गो – आर्य अष्ठाङ्गिक मार्ग – The eight fold noble path.

सिल (Discipline)
1. सम्मा बाचा (Right speech)
2. सम्मा कम्मन्तो (Right action)
3. सम्मा आजिबो (Right livelihood)

समाधी (Awareness)
4. सम्मा वायामो (Right exercise)
5. सम्मा सति (Right awareness)
6. सम्मा समाधी (Right concentration)

प्रज्ञा (Wisdom)
7. सम्मा दिठ्ठी (Right view)
8. सम्मा संकप्पो (Right thought)

Vishontar-jyu,

I am still in the earlier postings. Some comments.

>It is clear from this that a PERFECT "DISCIPLINE" is not
>essential for acquiring KNOWLEDGE

>Depends on how much subtle knowledge you want!
>[The] More you are disciplined, [the] less disturbances
>you will find in your mind (more concentration) and
>your wisdom will be more penetrating.

Exactly. It depends. And then what is required is not "discipline" per se. What is required is the attention. So any action ( no matter how "immoral" it is in other's view) that does not hurt ATTENTION significantly does not hurt LEARNING significantly.

Then the MOST IMPORTANT thing for learning is sufficient degree ofINTELLIGENCE required for that particular whatever is being learned.

For a given thing, a more intelligent person can AFFORD being less "disciplined" and learn the same thing with the same or more EFFICIENCY than a less intelligent person with more "discipline". So, intelligence rules. Discipline does not.

The basis of intelligence is primarily genetics. Environment has a way too lesser contribution than genetics has. In contrast, Buddha's preaching insist that environment is everything. This is where Buddha fails.

>Depends on how much subtle knowledge you want!

I would use the word "complexity" for "subtle". Because that's the most accurate way of characterizing "knowledge". Because knowledge is information at the end of the day. And the complexity of the information has two components- volume of data involved and the relationship among those data. Once again, intelligence is the primary device to handle complex information.

Let me conclude, Buddha fails to recognize the decisive role of "intelligence" in learning, he fails to recognize the limitation of improving "intelligence" by practical methods. He fails to appreciate NATURAL VARIATION of intelligence in a population. Buddha appears to be assuming that each individual comes with enough intelligence to handle knowledge of any complexity. That's not true.

>Explore yourself with the tools of सिल (Discipline) समाधी
>(Awareness) प्रज्ञा (Wisdom).

Some people are NATURALLY unequipped to explore themselves with required accuracy and efficiency. And even for the people who are equipped, if the purpose is to get to the correct information, a COLLABORATIVE project with more intelligent people rather than a lonely exploration by oneself will have more success rate. Wouldn't it ? Remember, I am talking about a purpose of getting the correct information (truth). A lonely experiment has more chance of acquiring erroneous information (illusion).
Actually this is where Buddha appear to be anti-scientific. I do not have to explain that science becomes science only because of "peer-review". And here, Buddha is shutting down the avenues of "collaboration" and "peer-review" and recommending to explore, conclude and believe in them all by THYSELF, when the purpose is to search the truth !

Clearly Buddha did not care (I mean was not careful ) about truth. What he cared is to REPLICATE his EXPERIENCE (which might, actually does, include ILLUSIONS/HALLUCINATIONS).

Buddha failed to be careful to distinguish or to give importance to distinguishing TRUTH from ILLUSION. The only way to distinguish TRUTH from ILLUSION is peer-review by competent reviewers.

*** *** ***

There are some crudity (scientific inaccuracy) in separating "Awareness" and "Wisdom" and in the classification of "Wisdom". However, they are less serious flaws than what I explained above. So I will not discuss them.

So, Vishontar-jyu, I shared my views regarding flaws in Buddha's teachings. That does not mean I do not appreciate his greatness and genius. I do. I am sure we will see his genius as you bring more of his teachings. Let's continue.

Nepe

View/Share this post only

Sorry for the italics. I hope it does not bother reading.

Nepe Dai,

I already wrote that I got to leave Sajha for now. However, I must respond something because you are putting false blame on Buddha.

Exactly. It depends. And then what is required is not "discipline" per se. What is required is the attention. So any action ( no matter how "immoral" it is in other's view) that does not hurt ATTENTION significantly does not hurt LEARNING significantly.


You are absolutely right. If you are alcohol adict. If you chase somebody else's wife. If you involve in intense quarriling, fighting, gambling, cheating, goofing, backbiting, stealing. Still you can learn Farming. But it will be hard for you to learn biology. To learn biology you have to have some more discipline because you need little more attention. Your attention should last at least few seconds.

But those who has to learn about thier mind, they need unwavering attention for hours. They need blameless, perfect discipline. A tiny little mistake they have done will break their attention.

Then the MOST IMPORTANT thing for learning is sufficient degree ofINTELLIGENCE required for that particular whatever is being learned

Now I am pretty sure either you don't read my postings or you don't understand them


The basis of intelligence is primarily genetics. Environment has a way too lesser contribution than genetics has. In contrast, Buddha's preaching insist that environment is everything. This is where Buddha fails.

Who told you Buddha said it is environment? If you have heard from someone take it as false. If you have read somewhere cite the refrence. I don't completely believe it is genetic either. I have seen fool offsprings of wise parents and wise offsprings of fool parents. Two twins also can't have equal intelligence. You are a biologist Please enlighten me. Is it true what you are saying?

would use the word "complexity" for "subtle".

You are wrong! It is other way around. You get subtal if you divide and disect and subtal is always simpler. DNA is complicated, it is gigentic but if you divide it and disect it you will get atoms, they are simple. They are just made up of simple three particles, electron, proton and neutron.

Some people are NATURALLY unequipped to explore themselves with required accuracy and efficiency.

Not some everybody are naturally equipped, they got to do.

And even for the people who are equipped, if the purpose is to get to the correct information, a COLLABORATIVE project with more intelligent people rather than a lonely exploration by oneself will have more success rate. Wouldn't it ?

You can always discuss with intelligence people. You can always learn from intelligence people. But is there any way to share your feeling. How can I feel what you feel? How can you feel what I feel?

A lonely experiment has more chance of acquiring erroneous information (illusion).
Actually this is where Buddha appear to be anti-scientific.

I have thought I will explain Dhamma in scientific language. You discouraged me! Your postings clearly shows that either you don't read my postings or you don't understand it.

learly Buddha did not care (I mean was not careful ) about truth. What he cared is to REPLICATE his EXPERIENCE (which might, actually does, include ILLUSIONS/HALLUCINATIONS).

Buddha failed to be careful to distinguish or to give importance to distinguishing TRUTH from ILLUSION. The only way to distinguish TRUTH from ILLUSION is peer-review by competent reviewers.



This statement is making me sure that I wasted my time.

I thank Vishwontarji for mentioning about 8 Noble Paths.

But everything Buddha taught was only for two purposes. As I mentioned earlier, Budhha was totally (exclusively) concerned with only 2 problems:

1. Dukkha:suffereing, unsatisfactoriness - disharmony.
2. Nirodha: elimination or remediation or cessation of suffering.

Therefore, if you want to practice Buddhism, you have to understand/practice Buddhism for the purpose of only above two aspects (parameters or domains).

You can develop deep concentrations to acomplish many things in the world, even Terrorism by Prachanda and Baburam. But what Vishwontar ji is talking is the similar concentration is needed to reach Nirvana (cessationof Sufferings). And to develop such a deep concentration, Buddha realized that Pure Discipline is required. Of course Maobadis in Nepal perhaps had discipline maintained by Prachanda and Baburam, and therefore they become so successful while hiding in the mountains and jungles. However, that discipline, as we know, is the IMPURE one. It was for the wrong cause which subscribed to killing everytboy who came against their Prachanda Path.

Vishontar-jyu,

I think it was a worth discussion. At least we learned about each other (each other's faith and skepticism), or, if you like, we learned how we can NOT learn about each other :-)

I said I will respect your faith no matter how I disagree or fail to grasp. So trust me, my respect to you remains intact now and forever.

I certainly hope you would continue this discourse for other friends if not for a recalcitrant one like me. So I certainly plead you to continue.

Let's agree to disagree with the things we apparently disagree and move on to next chapter.

*** ***

Re the little confusion regarding genetics/environment, I thought it was pretty simple. The offsprings become different from their parents through genetic mechanism (recombination). So when I said genetic, I was not saying parent's genes. I was saying individuals own (recombined and with any other alterations) set of genes.

As for environment, I was using it in a broad sense to mean training. That's what Buddha is talking about, isn't he ?

Anyway, as I said, let's move on to next one. I am not alone in this pleading.

*** ***

Karmarana-jee has repeatedly emphasizing how the scope of Buddha's quest was LIMITED. I think that's a good place to start.

Nepe Dai, I respect you very much ... isn't Dai title not enough for testimony :)? I not only respect you but love you too.

Nepe Dai, Here is my last try to tell you a universal truth.....I have illustrated as much as I can.

You need " Intelligence, attention and discipline all three to learn something, if anyone of these is missing, you can not learn". This is not Buddhism, this is universal truth and science.

You wrote:

Then the MOST IMPORTANT thing for learning is sufficient degree ofINTELLIGENCE required for that particular whatever is being learned.

For a given thing, a more intelligent person can AFFORD being less "disciplined" and learn the same thing with the same or more EFFICIENCY than a less intelligent person with more "discipline". So, intelligence rules. Discipline does not.


Did you find me anywhere saying that intelligence dosn't rule. I am repeatedly saying that Intelligence is the most important factor but it is not sufficient. I told you earlier as well, if you are intelligent but you are not attentive, you can not learn. Since you are intelligence, you can learn things with less attention, but you need attention.

You are intelligent but you do all short of disturbing things, like killing, stealing, hurting others, indulge in sexual misconduct, indulged in gambling, and all short of nasty things. There will be a lot of disturbance in your mind. You will not be able to keep your attention for long time because your mind will be disturbed. Yet you will be able to learn because you have good intelligence. However, you can't learn as effectively as you could have if you were disciplined.

Moreover, you can't learn those subtle things with instentanious attention which needs fairly long undisturbed atttention, no matter how intelligence you are. You can not get non-perturbing attention until you have fairly good conducts.

Intelligence (Wisdom) is very importance factor but it is not sufficient. Its property is to know, it can not know until you become attentative, no matter how intelligent you are. Attentativeness can not last long if you are wild. This is another fact.


You have limited experience of learning. To learn your Biology, you don't need continious attention. While reading one page your mind goes out many time. It goes out for short period of time sometime, you don't even notice. You believe that you are so focused.

I don't wonder, why you are not getting my point. You know just that world where you hardly need a minute long continious attention. You can be attentative for 59 sec and then remember your GFs face :) for 20 sec. Then be attentative for another 59 sec and remember Drew Barrymore in 50 first dates and so on so forth. It works! It works great! However, when you have to explore your mind and body you need hours long continuous attention. If you are not perfectly discipline, those nasty memories you have done will break the attention.

I remember a guy from NY saying after he completed his 10 day meditation course. "Oh man! when I close my eye my GF comes naked in front of me :)" . He was actually trying to be focused at a point. If he were a monk he wouldn't be facing this because of the disciplined life. This is just an example. IF you are not disciplined you are bound to face disturbances in your mind and that will certainly effect the learning. If you are very intelligence and not disciplined, you will learn less in the time you would have learned if you were disciplined. Very straight forward.

Don't compare yourself with dull people. They are less intelligence than you. They will learn slower. They need to be more disciplined and more attentative than you becasuse they are not gifted with intelligence.

In Buddha's teaching, there were people who meditated few minutes and reached to final goal. There were people who meditated for their life and couldn't reach to the goal. It depends on individual intelligence. In your language you are saying individual genetic.

View/Share this post only

Actually, intelligence (wisdom) is the key factor in Buddha's teaching. Here is something form his teaching:

परो सतंचपी समागतानं, झाययुचे बस्स सतं अप्रज्ञा।
एको व सेयो पुरीसो सपन्या, ते भाषितस्स बिजानाती अत्थं।।

One person, who is intelligence and understand the meaning is better than 100 unintelligence people meditating together for 100 years without any wisdom. See how much imortance is he giving to intelligence.

In fact Discipline and Awareness were already there in Yoga, he added Intelligence(Wisdom) in it. Wisdom has a highest place in Buddha's teaching and it is the gift of Buddha in Yogic tradition.

I don't know why I am having such a hard time to tell you a simple truth that you need attention ---Wisdom ---and --Discipline, all three to learn. I don't know why you think just intelligence is sufficient.

View/Share this post only

I have a very close friend, very very close one. He is so intelligent that I got surprised. when he learned 12 verses of Pali within few minutes. I hardly repeated for about 2 times each verse, he learned all of them by heart. He is the most intelligent amnong my freiends. You will get surprised if I tell you his story. He was studying in a highly reputed shool in India but he couldn't pass his 12. Then his parents brought him Kathmandu and sent him to KU. He told me that he always use to be high in the class room and he didn't know what the teacher was teaching. He couldn't take degree from KU either. He was a weed smoker, very indiscipliend person. How can he be attentative. This is not a made up story. Now he is in Kathmandu and runs a hydroproject.

Do you still want to say that only intelligence is enough for learning?

I know a person, very intelligence one. He fell in love with a woman and couldn't get her. Then he turned to an alcoholic. Now he can not learn anything. His intelligence went in vain.

Discipline, attentiveness and intelligence, all three are required for learning. This is universal law of learning, not a low made by Buddha. Some are more intelligent. Some are more attentative. Some are more disciplined. Some have all of these three qualities. Some has dominent two. But to learn you need all three more or less. You can not learn if anyone is completely missing. Think of it, if you think you are an intelligent :)!

As you suggested I should continue for other .... I may return.. However, for now I must leave . .... I must leave Sajha ...........

Love you Nepe Dai :)!

Bye for now!