Dear Dhivan,

Many thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

Now to your question.

"So I am not sure if I consider anything as sacred in Buddhism in the way that you ask. Of course there are

objects of devotion to which one goes for refuge. What is your opinion?"

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely nothing called 'sacred' in Dhamma. I distinguish between the Dhamma and Buddhism. Dhamma is the teaching of the Buddha. Basically, Dhamma means to me: The Four Noble Truths, The pa.ticchasamuppaada (dependent arising), The three characteristics of existence (anicca, dukkha and anatta). They are all natural laws; the way the things are. We can't pray to any of these things. And none of these things have power over us as such. We are subject to them as much we are subject to gravitation. I don't consider gravitation as sacred.

So the Dhamma to me does not include the misguided attempt of Abhidhammikas to explain Dhamma through metaphysics. Commentaries are valuable, provided you have intelligence to use them. Take away the abhidhammic explanations and the marvellous and the unbelievable and that they have been authored by fallible human authors, then you can use them.

Attempts to explain the Dhamma from time of the Mahaasaanghika formation, 118 after the time of the Buddha, have been miserable failures. Today, there are so many cults that sell the name of the Dhamma, with all fancy names and misinterpretations of dhamma.

I have one more comment about "going for refuge." Our meaning is as follows: the Buddha is Awakened; Dhamma is the Buddha's teaching; Sangha those who have followed the Buddha's path and become ariyas. So when we say 'we go for refuge,' all we are saying is we follow the Path--that is dhammacaari. Devotion we take it in the sense of commitment, determination etc. to follow the path. There is nothing in Dhamma, that you need to BELIEVE; belief and faith are matters for God and his created souls, attaas and so on. Dhamma is a path of discovery. It proceeds from the known to unknown.

This interpretation of Dhamma as a path from "belief to knowledge," is a total mistake. You need to be careful about science; In science, belief to knowledge is valid. But not when you are looking at absolute knowledge, you can forget about the science and scientific method.

Only thing we can learn from science is that scientists can't see the "REAL", what the Buddha said 2500 years ago: "avijaa paccayaa sa"nkhaaraa." Delusion conditions the arising of this five-aggregates of grasping, is the only truth and that is the absolute Truth.

With mettaa,

D. G. D. C. Wijeratna

P. S. I addressed you as Dear Dhivan, I wonder whether it is ok with you? I thought I would change it to Dear Dhammacaarii Dhivan. Please let me know which one you prefer.






____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]