In a paper published in (2009) as well as in his new edition of Introduction to Buddhism, Peter Harvey argues that sacca of the term ariyasacca should be rendered as “reality”, not as “truth” like commonly rendered. I basically agree with him in this paper, but reach quite different implications.

This is the final published version of "correct.pdf".

The revised version of intellectual_property.pdf

Intellectual Property in Early Buddhism: A Legal and Cultural Perspective

In this paper, I look at two related issues in the Vinaya: (1) the requirement of parental consent for all candidates wishing to join the Order, (2) the additional requirement of spousal consent for female candidates but no such requirement for male candidates, and I try to prove that all these regulations stemmed from the same principle.

In this paper, I try to answer three questions: (1) Was the Buddha a social reformer? (My answer would be NO.) (2) Was he for, or against, social reformer? (My answer would be: he did not bother.) (3) Can a Buddhist be a social reformer? (My answer would be: any Buddhist can be a reformer or conservative provided he/she observes the Buddhist moral principles.)

This is the final version of "new-approach.pdf." It is the final format published in the Volume 19 of Journal of Buddhist Ethics.

I argue in this paper that Early Buddhist ethic is one of absolute values, and that we can consistently use those absolute values to interpret some early teachings that seemingly show an ethic of context-dependent and negotiable values though.

Tithiyaparivāsa is a particular type of probation in Theravādin monasticism that former ascetics of certain heretic groups must undergo if they wish to gain admission to the Buddhist Order. In the extant probation procedure as found in the Pāli Vinaya tradition, there is no explicit accounting for the stage of novicehood. Why? This paper attempts to answer that question and also in the process discovers an unexpected insight into the legally ambiguous status of noviciation.

According to one account recorded in Mahaaparinibbaanasutta, the Buddha had to meet a royal minister named Vassakaara when the king Ajaatasattu ordered the latter to visit the Buddha and inform him about the king’s plan to subdue the country of Vajjiis. After hearing Vassakaara, the Buddha spoke on seven Conditions of Welfare (satta aparihaaniyaa dhammaa), which would ensure the prosperity of Vajjii as long as its citizens observed them. Vassakaara shrewdly inferred from the Buddha’s ...

Titthiyaparivāsa is a particular type of probation in Theravādin monasticism that former ascetics of other heretic groups must undergo if they wish to gain admission to the Buddhist Order. In the extant probation procedure as found in the Pali Vinaya tradition, there is no explicit accounting for the stage of novicehood. Why? This paper attempts to answer that question and incidentally also discovers an unexpected insight into the legally ambiguous status of noviciation.

In this paper I show that: (a) The timing of the Buddha’s journey to Uruvela forest is important to find a solution to the controversy surrounding his usage of ehibhikkhu ordination formula. (b) In Pali sources, that timing is open to two interpretations, none of which is convincing enough, but non-Pali Vinaya sources may be able to give the correct answer.

Dhirasekera claims in his work "Buddhist Monastic Discipline" that there is a ‘considerable difference’ between the Vinaya and Sutta traditions as regards the probation procedure for former alien ascetics aspiring to full ordination in the Buddhist Order. I argue, however, that he is only following Buddhaghosa’s assumptions to arrive at that conclusion. I question these assumptions and attempt to prove that such a difference between Vinaya and Sutta traditions is only apparent, not real.

This paper argues that the Buddha lived above and beyond the Vinaya rules unlike his followers.

This paper is a survey of two traditional Pali tools from Burma.

It argues that Pali sources have no conclusive evidence for the ancient existence of ehibhikkhunī nuns despite Dr. Juo-Hsüeh and some other scholars' argument to the contrary.

It points out Dr. Juo-Hsüeh has misunderstood Buddhaghosa when she criticizes Buddhaghosa over the interpretation of the term "anupasampanno" in the Duṭṭhullārocana precept of Bhikkhu Pātimokkha.