Loko

Picture

wallpaper

be happy

သင့္နံပါတ္ဘယ္ေလာက္လဲ

စိတ္၀င္စားစရာေတာ့ေကာင္းသားတို

က္ဆိုင္တယ္ဗ်... *
သင္နံပါတ္ဘယ္ေလာက္လဲ?*



*၁ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၁၊ ၁၀၊ ၁၉၊ ၂၈ ရက္ ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၁ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ားဟု ေခၚသည္။
၁ ဂဏန္းပိုင္ရွင္မ်ားက အခ်စ္ ေမတၲာဟူသည္ ႏွလံုးသားႏွင့္ဦးေႏွာက္ ေပါင္းစပ္ဆံုး
ျဖတ္ရေသာ အခ်င္းအရာ ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ယူဆၾကသည္။ ဘ၀အေဖၚကို ေရြးခ်ယ္ ေသာအခါ ဦးေႏွာက္၏
ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ကို ထည္႔သြင္း စဥ္းစားေလ႔ရိွသည္။ မိမိအေပၚ နားလည္ခြင့္လႊတ္၍
ပံ့ပိုးကူညီ ျခင္းရိွသူကို ေရြးခ်ယ္တတ္သည္။ ကံေခသည္မွာ အခ်စ္ဆံုးႏွင့္
ေကြကြင္းရတတ္ျပီး ခ်စ္သူက တစ္ေယာက္၊ လက္ထပ္ရသူက တစ္ဦး ျဖစ္တတ္သည္။ အသက္ ၁၆ မွ
၂၂ ႏွစ္ၾကား ေမတၲာ ကံေခ၍ ၂၂ ေက်ာ္မွ ရင့္က်က္ေသာ ႏွလံုးသားျဖင့္
ခိုင္ျမဲေသာခ်စ္ျခင္းေမတၲာ ပိုင္ဆိုင္ခြင့္ရိွမည္။
*
*၂ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၂၊ ၁၁၊ ၂၀၊ ၂၉ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၂ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား ဟုေခၚသည္။
အခ်စ္ႏွင့္အမွန္းၾကား နယ္နိမိတ္သည္ မ်ဥ္းေၾကာင္းငယ္ေလးမွ်သာျဖစ္မည္။ ခ်စ္မိ၊
တြယ္တာ မိျပီဆိုက အရာရာေပးဆပ္တတ္ျပီး မုန္းျပီဆိုက လွည္႔ မၾကည့္။ အလြန္
ခ်စ္တတ္သလို အျငိဳး အေတး ၾကီးတတ္သည္။ ေမတၲာတရားႏွင့္ ခ်စ္ျခင္းအေပၚ
အေလးအနက္ထား၍ ဘ၀အေဖၚ ေရြးခ်ယ္လင့္ကစား ဂုဏ္၊ ေငြေၾကးတို႔ကို အဓိကထားသည္ဟု
အမ်ားမွ အထင္လြဲ ျခင္းခံရ တတ္သည္။ အသက္ ၂၅ ႏွစ္မတိုင္မီ သူတစ္ပါး ကတိစကားမ်ား
အေပၚ ယံုစားမိ၍ စိတ္ေသာက ခံစားရတတ္သည္။ အခ်စ္ဦးႏွင့္ ဆံုဆည္းကိန္း မရိွေသာ္လည္း
အခ်စ္ဆံုးသူႏွင့္ လက္တြဲရမည္။
*
*၃ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၃၊ ၁၂၊ ၂၁၊ ၃၀ ရက္ ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၃ ဂဏန္းသမား မ်ားဟုေခၚသည္။
မ်က္ႏွာပြင့္၍ လူခ်စ္လူခင္ ေပါမ်ားမည္။ ခ်စ္သူရည္းစား တစ္ဦးမကရိွမည္။ သူတစ္ပါး
အေပၚ အႏိုင္ယူ ဗိုလ္က်ရမွ ေက်နပ္သူမ်ား ျဖစ္ေပရာ အခ်စ္စိတ္ႏွင့္ ခံယူမူမွာ
ဆိုးႏြဲ႔ သမွ်ကို နားလည္ ခြင့္လႊတ္ေသာသူ၊ အႏိုင္ယူ ရမည္႔သူကို ေရြးခ်ယ္တတ္သည္။
ႏွလံုးသားကို ဦးစားေပး၍ ဆံုးျဖတ္ျပီးမွ မွားယြင္းသလို ျပန္ခံစားတတ္သည္။
ေနာက္ဆံုးတြင္ကား အရင္ဆံုး ခ်စ္သူအေပၚ စိတ္ျပန္လည္သြားမည္။ တစ္ဦးကို
အသည္းႏွလံုး ပံုေပး၍ ခ်စ္တတ္သလို တစ္ျပိဳင္တည္း အျခားသူ တစ္ဦးအေပၚ
ခ်စ္ႏိုင္စြမ္း ရိွသည္။ ႏွလံုးသားအေပၚ ဦးစားေပး လြန္းသူျဖစ္သည္။*

*၄ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၄၊ ၁၃၊ ၂၂၊ ၃၁ ရက္ေန႔ ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၄ ကဏန္းသမားမ်ား
ဟုေခၚသည္။ အစြဲအလမ္းၾကီးျခင္း၊ တစ္ဖက္စြန္း က်လြန္းျခင္းေၾကာင့္ ႏွလံုးသားေရးရာ
စိတ္ေသာက ၾကံဳရတတ္သည္။ ဂုဏ္အနိမ္႔အျမင့္ မတူသူမ်ား အနက္ နိမ္႔က်သူကို ဦးစားေပး
ေရြးခ်ယ္၍ အလိုလိုက္ အၾကိဳက္ေဆာင္ကာ ဘ၀ျမွင့္တင္ေပးကာမွ မိမိ၏အသည္းကို
ခြဲသြားျခင္း ခံရတတ္သည္။ စိတ္လွဳပ္ရွားမူႏွင့္ ဆန္းသစ္ေသာ အေတြ႔အၾကံဳမ်ားကို
လိုလားေသာ ႏွလံုးသားကို ပိုင္ဆိုင္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ ဦးေႏွာက္ႏွင့္ ႏွလံုးသားအၾကား
အျမဲေတြေ၀ ဒြိဟျဖစ္ကာ ေမတၲာေရးရာ တြင္စိတ္ဓါတ္ တက္လြယ္၊ က်လြယ္သည္။
ေျဖာင့္မွန္ရိုးသာ၍ မိမိေၾကာင့္ တစ္ပါးသူ စိတ္ခ်မ္းေျမ႔ ေအးခ်မ္းရျခင္းကို
လိုလားသူျဖစ္သည္။ ေပးဆပ္ အနစ္နာ ခံသည္။
*
*၅ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၅၊ ၁၄၊ ၂၃ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၅ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား ဟုေခၚသည္။ ေတြေ၀
ဒြိဟျဖစ္တတ္ေသာ သေဘာ သဘာ၀ရိွေသာ္လည္း စိတ္ဓါတ္ အလြန္ခိုင္ျမဲသည္။ အလြယ္တကူ
ဆံုးျဖတ္ေရြးခ်ယ္ေလ႔မရိွ။ မိမိအေပၚ တေလးတစားႏွင့္ တန္ဖိုးထားသူ၊ တစ္စံုတစ္ရာ
အေထာက္ အကူျပဳပံ့ပိုးႏိုင္သူကို ေရြးခ်ယ္တတ္သည္။ အေရြးရခက္ေအာင္ အခြင့္အေရး
ႏွစ္မ်ိဳး ႀကံဳလာပါက ႏွလံုးသား၏ ေတာင္းဆိုမူအေပၚ ရဲ၀ံ့ျပတ္သားစြာ အေလးေပးမည္႔
သူျဖစ္သည္။ မိမိႏွင့္ အသက္ အရြယ္၊ ၀န္းက်င္ဇာတိ သဘာ၀မတူ ကြာျခားသူမ်ားႏွင့္
ေမတၲာမွ်တတ္သည္။ ခ်စ္သူႏွင့္ ခြဲခြာရေလ သံေယာဇဥ္ ျပင္းထန္ေလျဖစ္သည္။
အလြန္စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ဆန္ေသာ ႏွလံုးသားျဖစ္သည္။*

*၆ ဂဏန္း သမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၆၊ ၁၅၊ ၂၄ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၆ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ားဟု ေခၚသည္။
သံေယာဇဥ္ၾကီး၍ ခိုင္မာေသာ ေမတၲာတရားႏွင့္ မိမိက ခ်စ္ရသူအေပၚ
အျမဲစိတ္ခ်မ္းသာေအာင္ ျဖည္႔ဆည္းေပးရမည္ဟူေသာ အယူအဆရိွသည္။ ခ်စ္ခဲ၍ အခ်စ္ျမဲသည္။
မိသားစု အသိုင္းအ၀ိုင္း မတူညီသူကို ေရြးခ်ယ္၍ အားလံုးႏွင့္ ဆန္႔က်င္ရန္
၀န္မေလး။ အေပ်ာ္သေဘာ စိတ္ကစားျခင္း မရိွဘဲ သစၥာ တရားရိွမွ အခ်စ္ေမတၲာသည္
ျပီးျပည္႔စံုသည္ဟု ယူဆထား သူျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ သူတစ္ပါးအေပၚ မိမိေပးဆပ္သေလာက္
ထပ္တူ ျပန္ေကာင္း သူရရန္ ခဲယဥ္းေပသည္။ အခ်စ္ ေမတၲာထက္ တစ္စတစ္စ ရစ္ႏြယ္လာေသာ
သံေယာဇဥ္ကို ႏွစ္သက္သူျဖစ္သည္။*

*၇ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၇၊ ၁၆၊ ၂၅ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၇ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ားဟု ေခၚသည္။
အခိုင္အမာ ဆံုးျဖတ္၍ ေလးေလးနက္နက္ ခ်စ္တတ္သည္႔ အလြန္ေအးခ်မ္းျမင့္ျမတ္ေသာ
ေမတၲာပိုင္ရွင္ ျဖစ္သည္။ တစ္ပါးသူအေပၚ လြန္လြန္ကဲကဲ စာနာနားလည္တတ္ည္။
အခ်စ္အတြက္ အရာရာ ရင္ဆိုင္ဆန္႔က်င္ တိုက္ခိုက္ရန္ ၀န္မေလးေသာ္လည္း
အခ်စ္ကိုဖြင့္ဟ ေျပာဆိုရန္ အလြန္ရွက္ သျဖင့္ မခ်စ္တတ္ ေသာသူဟူ၍
အထင္မွားခံရတတ္သည္။ မိမိအား နားလည္မူ ရိွသူကိုဦးစားေပး ေရြးခ်ယ္သင့္သည္။
အလြန္စန္းပြင့္ ေသာ္လည္း ခ်စ္သူမ်ားရန္ ၀န္ေလးသည္ ဘ၀လမ္းေၾကာင္းတြင္ ေမြးရပ္၊
ဘာသာ၊ ဓေလ႔ ထံုးစံမတူသူမ်ားႏွင့္ ေမတၲာမွ် ရတတ္သည္။*

*၈ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၈၊ ၁၇၊ ၂၆ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၈ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ားဟုေခၚသည္။
အရာရာတြင္ ထိန္းခ်ဳပ္ႏိုင္ေသာစိတ္ရိွသေလာက္ ေမတၲာတရားတြင္
ထိန္းခ်ဳပ္ႏိုင္ျခင္းမရိွ။ ခ်စ္သူကို အလိုလိုက္လြန္း၊ ဦးစားေပးလြန္းသျဖင့္
စိတ္ေသာက ခံစားရတတ္သည္။ ခ်စ္သူကို အရာရာျပည္႔စံု ေစလိုသျဖင့္ ေပးဆပ္တတ္ေသာ
သဘာ၀ေၾကာင့္ မိမိႏွလံုးသားကို ခုတံုးလုပ္ျခင္း မ်ိဳးပင္ ခံရတတ္သည္။ သီးသန္႔
ေအးခ်မ္းစြာေနတတ္ျပီး မနာလို၀န္တိုျခင္းကင္းေသာ ၾကီးျမတ္သည္႔ ႏွလံုးသားအား
ပိုင္ဆိုင္သည္။ မိမိကိုယ္မိမိ အထီးက်န္ဆန္ကာ အားငယ္ ေနတတ္ေသာ ခံစားခ်က္ရိွသည္။
သူတစ္ပါး ပစ္ပယ္ထားသူကို စာနာစိတ္ အျပည္႔ႏွင့္ ေမတၲာ ထားတတ္သည္။*

*၉ ဂဏန္းသမားမ်ား*
*မည္သည္႔လတြင္မဆို ၉၊ ၁၈၊ ၂၇ ရက္ေမြးသူမ်ားကို ၉ ဂဏန္း သမားမ်ားဟုေခၚသည္။
အလြန္အခ်စ္ခံလိုသည္။ မိမိ အေပၚ ေအးေအးခ်မ္းခ်မ္း သိမ္သိမ္ေမြ႔ေမြ႔ ႏူးညံ့စြာ
အေလးေပး ဆက္ဆံသူအား လိုလားသည္။ အခ်စ္အတြက္ ဘာမဆို ေပးဆပ္ရဲသည္။
အလြန္မ်က္ႏွာမ်ား၍ ရည္းစား မိွဳလိုေပါက္ေအာင္ အျပိဳင္ထားလင့္ကစား
အိမ္ေထာင္ေရးရာတြင္ အခ်စ္ဆံုးႏွင့္ လြဲေခ်ာ္၍ နီးစပ္မူ အရိွဆံုးသူႏွင့္
ဆံုဆည္းရတတ္သည္။ မည္မွ်ဆိုးေသာ အိမ္ေထာင္ဖက္ျဖစ္ေစ အိမ္ေထာင္ တစ္ဆက္တည္း
ျမဲေစရန္ အစဥ္ၾကိဳးပမ္းေလ႔ရိွသည္။ အျပင္ပန္းအရ ၾကမ္းတမ္းခက္ထန္ သည္ဟု
ထင္ရလင့္ကစား အတြင္းစိတ္ႏူးညံ့၍ အေပးသမားသာျဖစ္သည္။*



*ကဲ..မိတ္ေဆြတို႔ေရာ နံပါတ္ ဘယ္ေလာက္လဲ?

Buddhist Council in Siri Lanka Fourth

Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka Fourth

The 1st Fourth Buddhist Council (Theravada tradition) was held in response to a year in which the harvests in Sri Lanka were particularly poor, and many monks subsequently died of starvation. Because the Pali Canon was in that time solely remembered by heart, the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing the teachings of the Tipitaka down, so that even if some of the monks (whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Tipitaka for later generations) died, the teachings would not be lost. This Fourth Buddhist Council took three years.

The Fourth Buddhist Council was held in Tambapanni (Sri Lanka) under the patronage of King Vattagamani. The main reason for its convening was the realization that it was now not possible for the majority of monks to retain the entire Tipitaka in their memories as had been the case formerly for the Venerable Mahinda and those who followed him soon after. Therefore, as the art of writing had, by this time developed substantially it was thought expedient and necessary to have the entire body of the Buddha's teaching written down.

King Vattagamani supported the monk's idea and a council was held specifically to commit the entire Tipitaka to writing, so that the genuine Dhamma might be lastingly preserved. To this purpose, the Venerable Maharakkhita and five hundred monks recited the words of the Buddha and then wrote them down on palm leaves. This remarkable project took place in a cave called, the Aloka lena, situated in the cleft of an ancient landslip near what is now Matale. Thus the aim of the Council was achieved and the preservation in writing of the authentic Dhamma was ensured. In the Eighteenth Century, King Vijayarajasiha had images of the Buddha created in this cave.

After the Council, palm leaves books appeared, and were taken to other countries, such as Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. The Tipitaka and its commentaries were originally brought to Sri Lanka by the missionary monk Mahinda of the Third Buddhist Council.

What is Religion?

What is Religion?

What is Religious? Well it is Hard to say Exactly”

Educators who teach about religion immediately face the problem of defining the subject. Is a "religion" to be regarded as another form of human thought or opinion covered by guarantees of freedom, as is speech, assembly, press and so on? Or, does religion always imply supernaturalism?

There are further questions. Should the definition simply refer to those who feel that they are in a particular relationship to God (however defined) with an obligation to fulfill divinely revealed law? For example, Judaism is always listed as a "religion," but what about Humanistic Judaism,[1] which focuses on persons and humanity without reference to a deity? In addition, many Secular Humanists [2] tend to eschew the term "religion" because, in its popular interpretation, it carries with it overtones of a supernaturalism that they reject.

What does the word "religion" mean, and what is religion and what is nonreligion?

A Starting Place

The root of the word "religion" is usually traced to the Latin religare (re: back, and ligare: to bind), so that the term is associated with "being bound." The idea may reflect a concept prominent in biblical literature. Israel was said to be in a "covenant" (berith) relationship with its God (Yahweh). In a sense, the nation was "covenanted" or "bonded" to the deity. But what does being bound or bonded mean? Is a slave who is bound or bonded to his or her master in a "religious" relationship? Is a business agreement which binds partners in a legal covenant a form of "religious" binding? At one time in human history, such "bindings" may have had religious sanction, but today, in America, slavery is outlawed and business contracts are made in legal settings. This particular notion of religion as "binding" doesn't really fit and therefore this interpretation of the root meaning of the term proves not to be particularly helpful.

On the other hand, one might argue that the religious person is one "bound" by choice or by commitment to the tenets of a particular faith system. Once again, the parameters of this definition can be broadened to include any commitment to a particular way of life. Such an expansion would embrace concepts like "philosophy" or "psychology" or even any chosen way of living. One's religion then becomes "how one lives one's life" or "how one lives in the light of a particular commitment" or, in popular vernacular, one's "life style." Obviously, while the term "commitment" may provide some insight into the concept of "being bound," it is far too inclusive to be acceptable.

The Notion of Faith

Religion may embrace a conception of "faith," and it is not uncommon to find mention of the "faiths of humankind." The reference is generally to that to which individuals or groups are loyal, to that in which trust is placed. Theologian H. Richard Niebuhr[3] pointed out that, when a patriotic nationalist might claim

"I was born to die for my country" he is exhibiting the double relationship that we now call faith. The national life is for him the reality whence his own life derives its worth. He relies on the nation as source of his own value. He trusts it; first, perhaps, in the sense of looking constantly to it as the enduring reality out of which he has issued, into whose ongoing cultural life his own actions and being will merge. His life has meaning because it is part of that context, like a word in a sentence. It has value because it fits into a valuable whole. His trust may also be directed toward the nation as a power which will supply his needs, care for his children, and protect his life. But faith in the nation is primarily reliance upon it as an enduring value-center. Insofar as the nation is the last value-center to which the nationalist refers, he does not raise the question about its goodness to him or about its rightness or wrongness. Insofar as it is value-center rightness and wrongness depend on it. This does not mean in any Hobbesian sense that for such faith the national government determines what is right and what is wrong but rather that the rightness of all actions depends on their consonance with the inner constitution of the nation and on their tendency to enhance or diminish national life, power, and glory. (p. 17)

"Value-center," "trust," "loyalty," "meaning" are intertwined to provide the definition of "faith" or "a faith." It is not difficult to understand that, whereas a theist may express such a faith in a god, an atheist or a humanist may also claim to have such a value-center that gives meaning and direction to life. This value-center would be a faith in the possibilities and potentials of "humanity." Inasmuch as many religions have humanistic concerns and dimensions, there will be overlaps in outreach to those in need and in the interpretation of meaningful response. Whereas the religious person may respond to human need because his or her faith system calls for such response, the humanist will respond out of the well-springs of compassion. The responses may be the same or paralleled, but the motivations will emerge from different value-centers.

Those who accept and those who do not accept supernaturalistic beliefs will enjoy the same or similar feelings of awe and wonder as they view a sunset, a magnificent forest, or the broad rolling prairies; or as they listen to the quieting murmur of a brook, the lapping of waves of a lake or ocean, or the soughing of wind in the tree tops; or as they witness the fury of an electric storm, a hurricane, or a tidal wave. The difference will be in the interpretations. The supernaturalist will interpret these experience with reference to a deity, the nonsupernaturalists will see them as manifestations of nature. The experiences will be the same or paralleled; the interpretations will differ. Perhaps both can be interpreted as "spiritual" experiences — in one case with supernaturalistic overtones; in the other resonating with wonder and awe, but without the supernatural.

Struggling for Definition

It is not surprising to discover that most present day scholars tend to avoid definitions when they discuss religions. The reasons for evasion become obvious as we look at some of the many earlier efforts to define the term. For example, in his Gifford Lectures (1902), the psychologist William James [4] defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine" (p. 42). Obviously, this definition is too limited; religion is more than affect and more than what people do in their solitariness. As William Newsman [5] pointed out: "regardless of what else may be said of religion, it is also a social phenomenon — it is something that people do in groups." (p. 3) Mircea Eliade [6], the Roman Catholic historian of religions, rejected the study of religions solely from psychological or sociological perspectives and sought to examine the patterns or forms of religious expression. He would separate the sacred from the profane, even though he recognized that religion has the capacity to transform the profane into the sacred. (p. 30) The Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich [7], wrote of religion in terms of "ultimate concern" within which he would include secularism: "For secularism is never without ultimate concern." (p. 124) The sociologist, Emile Durkheim [8] , linked religion to the concept of "church:" "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." (p. 47) Obviously, this definition runs counter to the recognition of the ascetics who express their beliefs outside of a community.

Into this struggle for definition, others have introduced a number of special terms. … For example, Rudolph Otto [9] in The Idea of the Holy produced a battery of Latin terms that suggest aesthetic dimensions in religion. He wrote of human confrontation with the "numinous," which is "wholly other" or outside normal experience and which is indescribable, terrifying, fascinating, characterized by dread and awe. The experience is of a mysterium tremendum et fascinosum, an "awe-filled and fascinating mystery." He wrote of the numen tremendum, which refers to the sense of the uncanny or that which renders a person "awestruck." All of these feeling responses he associated with religion. However, these terms refer to reactions not unlike those expressed by astronomers as they are awestruck, fascinated and moved by the immensity of space; or by our cosmonauts when, with deep emotion and fascination, they viewed the earth from space; or by poets and artists as they struggle to articulate the wonder they experience in everything from nature to human technological creativity; and by paleontologists and other scientists as they confront the mysterious beginnings of life on planet earth. As we noted above, some of us experience similar feelings as we view the majesty of the mountains, the beauty of a sunset, the power of the ocean, the deepest chasm in the crust of the earth, or the shaking of the earth during an earthquake or violent storm. These are human aesthetic responses to the wonders of our cosmos. They are not limited to "true believers" nor are they necessarily to be defined as "religious," although some would accept the term "spiritual," indicating the deep emotional stirrings evoked, but without any supernaturalistic implications.

Nor is it possible to link religion in a singular way to values, as Ames has done in his definition of religion as "the consciousness of the highest social values" [10, p. 11]. Values rise out of society and can exist quite apart from religion. Religion is not alone in seeking meaning for existence. Joseph Gaer [11] described religion as a person’s thoughtful response to the question "why?" This implies that religion alone seeks meaning for existence. But philosophy, psychology and the sciences also pose this question. Nor can religion be linked simply to "impulse directed to the conservation and preservation of life," as Jane Harrison [12] phrased it. And the list goes on and on.

The question arises: How does one handle this problem? Perhaps the answer lies in "no definition."

Forging Ahead

John A. Hutchinson [13], in his book Paths of Faith, acknowledged the difficulty in defining religion. He wrote:

Formal definitions of religion are as numerous, as various, and often as mutually conflicting as there are students of religion. Often such definitions illustrate the oriental parable of the blind men describing the elephant, each taking hold of part of the beast and defining the whole in terms of this part. Like the elephant, religion is a large and complex phenomenon. In this connection, some historians of religion question or reject the word religion as a distortion of the form of experience it seeks to communicate. Several of the world's major languages lack any word that can be adequately translated as "religion." The common noun religion imputes a unity or homogeneity of experience that many observers believe does not exist. (pp. 3-4)

Hutchinson goes on to point out that substituted words do not work. However, he then attempts his own definition of the "ultimate valuation" experience—something at once particularly universal and yet so multifarious and multifaceted that its definition is elusive. The available terminology is inadequate, though, and satisfactory definition eludes even Hutchinson.

Given that we generally recognize and acknowledge that the development of religion is a particularly human endeavor, then we can follow a pattern set by those who simply discuss "religions" without becoming entangled in debates over precise definitions.

Religions include aspects of all of the themes mentioned above.

Shwedagon

Welcome to Shwedagon Pagoda
Yangon Myanmar

Shwedagon

Aniyata

This term means "indefinite." The rules in this section do not assign definite or fixed penalties, but instead give procedures by which the Community may pass judgment when a bhikkhu in uncertain circumstances is accused of having committed an offense. There are two training rules here.

1. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman on a seat secluded enough to lend itself to sexual intercourse, so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen them, might describe it as constituting any of three cases — entailing defeat, communal meetings, or confession — then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat there, may be dealt with in line with any of the three cases — entailing defeat, communal meetings, or confession — or he may be dealt with in line with whichever case the female lay follower whose word can be trusted described. This case is indefinite.

Woman here means a female human being, "even one born that very day, all the more an older one." To sit also includes lying down. Whether the bhikkhu sits down when the woman is already seated, or the woman sits down when he is already seated, or both sit down at the same time, makes no difference here.

Private means private to the eye and private to the ear. Two people are sitting in a place private to the eye when no one else is near enough to see if they wink, raise their eyebrows, or nod . They are in a place private to the ear when no one else is near enough to hear what they say in a normal voice . A secluded seat is one behind a wall, a closed door, a large bush, or anything at all that would afford them enough privacy to engage in sexual intercourse.

For a bhikkhu to sit in such a place with a woman can be in itself a breach of see the explanations for that rule and affords the opportunity for breaking and as well — which is why this case is called indefinite.

If a trustworthy female lay follower happens to see a bhikkhu with a woman in such circumstances, she may inform the Community and charge him on the basis of what she has seen. Female lay follower here means one who has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha. Trustworthy means that she is at least a stream-winner. Even if she is not a stream-winner, the Community may choose to investigate the case anyway; but if she is, they have to. The texts do not discuss cases in which a man is making the charge but, given the low legal status of women in the Buddha's time, it seems reasonable to infer that if a woman's word was given such weight, the same would hold true for a man's. In other words, if he is a stream-winner, the Community has to investigate the case. If he isn't, they are free to handle the case or not, as they see fit.

The wording of the rule suggests that once the matter is investigated and the bhikkhu in question has stated his side of the story, the bhikkhus are free to judge the case either in line with what he admits to having done or in line with the trustworthy female lay follower's charge. In other words, if his admission and her charge are at variance, they may decide which side seems to be telling the truth and impose a penalty — or no penalty — on the bhikkhu as they see fit.

The Vibhaṅga, however, states that they may deal with him only in line with what he admits to having done. The Commentary offers no explanation for this point aside from saying that in uncertain cases things are not always as they seem, citing as example the story of an arahant who was wrongly charged by another bhikkhu of having broken .

Actually, the Vibhaṅga in departing from the wording of the rule is simply following the general guidelines the Khandhakas give for handling accusations. Apparently what happened was that this rule and the following one were formulated early on. Later, when the general guidelines were first worked out, some group-of-six bhikkhus abused the system to impose penalties on innocent bhikkhus they didn't like , so the Buddha formulated a number of checks to prevent the system from working against the innocent. We will cover the guidelines in detail under the adhikaraṇa-samatha rules in , but here we may note a few of their more important features.

As explained under , if Bhikkhu X is charged with an offense, the bhikkhus who learn of the charge are duty-bound to question him first in private. If he admits to having done as charged, agrees that it is an offense, and then undergoes the penalty, nothing further need be done . If he admits that he did the act, but refuses to see that it is an offense or to undergo the penalty, then if the act really did constitute an offense, the Community may meet and suspend him . The Khandhakas show that "not seeing an offense" does not mean that one denies doing the act; simply that one does not agree that the act was against any of the rules.

If, however, X denies the charge, and yet some of the members of the Community suspect him of not telling the truth, the issue has to go to a formal meeting. Once the case reaches this stage, one of only three verdicts is possible: that the accused is innocent, that he was insane at the time he committed the offense and so absolved of guilt, or that he is not only guilty as charged but — for having dragged out his confession to this point — also deserves a further-punishment transaction , which is the same as a censure transaction .

When the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be present, and both must agree to the case's being heard by that particular group. If the original accuser is a lay person, one of the bhikkhus is to take up the charge. The accused is then asked to state his version of the story and is to be dealt with in accordance with what he admits to having done . shows that the other bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value. They should press and cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that he is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of the three verdicts mentioned above.

If necessary, they should be prepared to spend many hours in the meeting to arrive at a unanimous decision, for if they cannot come to a unanimous agreement, the case has to be left as unsettled, which is a very bad question mark to leave hovering over the communal life. The Commentary to suggests that if one side or the other seems unreasonably stubborn, the senior bhikkhus should lead the group in long periods of chanting to wear down the stubborn side.

If a verdict is reached but later discovered to be wrong — the accused got away with a plea of innocence when actually guilty, or admitted guilt simply to end the interrogation when actually innocent — the Community may reopen the case and reach a new verdict (Cv.IV.8). If a bhikkhu — learning that a fellow bhikkhu actually was guilty and yet got away with a verdict of innocence — then helps conceal the truth, he is guilty of an offense under .

Obviously, the main thrust of these guidelines is to prevent an innocent bhikkhu from being unfairly penalized. As for the opposite case — a guilty bhikkhu getting away with no penalty — we should remember that the laws of kamma guarantee that in the long run he is not getting away with anything at all.

Although these guidelines supercede both aniyata rules, the rules still serve two important functions:

1) They remind the bhikkhus that charges made by lay people are not to be lightly ignored, and that the Buddha at one point was willing to let the bhikkhus give more weight to the word of a female lay follower than to that of the accused bhikkhu. This in itself, considering the general position of women in Indian society at the time, is remarkable.

2) As we will see under , it is possible under some circumstances — depending on the bhikkhu's state of mind — to sit alone with a woman in a secluded place without incurring a penalty. Still, a bhikkhu should not blithely take advantage of the exemptions under that rule, for even if his motives are pure, his actions may not appear pure to anyone who comes along and sees him there. These rules serve to remind such a bhikkhu that he could easily be subject to a charge that would lead to a formal meeting of the Community. Even if he were to be declared innocent, the meeting would waste a great deal of time both for himself and for the Community. And in some people's minds — given the Vibhaṅga's general rule that he is innocent until proven guilty — there would remain the belief that he was actually guilty and got off with no penalty simply from lack of hard evidence. A bhikkhu would thus be wise to avoid such situations altogether, remembering what Lady Visākhā told Ven. Udāyin in the origin story to this rule:

"It is unfitting, venerable sir, and improper, for the master to sit in private, alone with a woman... Even though the master may not be aiming at that act, cynical people are hard to convince."

Summary: When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a bhikkhu of having committed a pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or pācittiya offense while sitting alone with a woman in a private, secluded place, the Community should investigate the charge and deal with the bhikkhu in accordance with whatever he admits to having done.

2. In case a seat is not sufficiently secluded to lend itself to sexual intercourse but sufficiently so to address lewd words to a woman, should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman on such a seat, so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen them, might describe it as constituting either of two cases — entailing communal meetings or confession — then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat there, may be dealt with in line with either of the two cases — entailing communal meetings or confession — or he may be dealt with in line with whichever case the female lay follower whose word can be trusted described. This case too is indefinite.

This rule differs from the preceding one mainly in the type of seat it describes — private to the eye and private to the ear, but not secluded. Examples would be an open-air meeting hall or a place out in the open in sight of other people but far enough away from them so that they could not see one wink, etc., or hear what one is saying in a normal voice. Such a place, although inconvenient for committing would be convenient for committing . As a result, the term woman under this rule is defined as under those rules: one experienced enough to know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.

Otherwise, all explanations for this rule are the same as for the preceding rule.

Summary: When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a bhikkhu of having committed a saṅghādisesa or pācittiya offense while sitting alone with a woman in an unsecluded but private place, the Community should investigate the charge and deal with the bhikkhu in accordance with whatever he admits to having done.

Agganna Sutta

Agganna Sutta

Once the Lord was staying at Savatthi, at the mansion of Migara's mother in the East Park. And at that time Vasettha and Bharadvaja were living among the monks, hoping to become monks themselves. And in the evening, the Lord rose from his secluded meditation and came out of the mansion, and started walking up and down in its shade.

Vasettha noticed this, and he said to Bharadvaja: "Friend Bharadvaja, the Lord has come out and is walking up and down. Let us approach him. We might be fortunate enough to hear a talk on Dhamma from the Lord himself." "Yes, indeed", said Bharadvaja, so they went up to the Lord, saluted him, and fell into step with him.

Then the Lord said to Vasettha: "Vasettha, you two are Brahmins born and bred, and you have gone forth from the household life into homelessness from Brahmin families. Do not the Brahmins revile and abuse you?" "Indeed, Lord, the Brahmins do revile and abuse us. They don't hold back with their usual flood of reproaches. Lord, what the Brahmins say is this: 'The Brahmin caste is the highest caste, other cases are base; the Brahmin caste is fair, other castes are dark; Brahmins are purified, non-Brahmins are not, the Brahmins are the true children of Brahma, born from his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma. And you, you have deserted the highest class and gone over to the base class of shaveling petty ascetics, servants, dark fellows born of Brahma's foot! It's not right, it's not proper for you to mix with such people!' That is the way the Brahmins abuse us, Lord."

"Then, Vasettha, the Brahmins have forgotten their ancient tradition when they say that. Because we can see Brahmin women, the wives of Brahmins, who menstruate and become pregnant, have babies and give suck. And yet these womb-born Brahmins talk about being born from Brahma's mouth...These Brahmins misrepresent Brahma, tell lies and earn much demerit.

"There are, Vasettha, these four castes: the Khattiyas, the Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And sometimes a Khattiya takes life, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tells lies, indulges in slander, harsh speech or idle chatter, is grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things are immoral and considered so, blameworthy and considered so, to be avoided and considered so, ways unbefitting an Ariyan and considered so, black with black results and blamed by the wise, are sometimes to be found among the Khattiyas, and the same applies to Brahmins, merchants and artisans.

"Sometimes, too, a Khattiya refrains from taking life,...is not grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things as are moral and considered so, blameless and considered so, to be followed and considered so, ways befitting an Ariyan and considered so, bright with bright results and praised by the wise, are sometimes to be found among the Khattiyas, and likewise among Brahmins, merchants and artisans.

"Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest. Why is that? Because, Vasettha, anyone from the four castes who becomes a monk, an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, who has lived the life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and become emancipated through super-knowledge--he is proclaimed supreme by virtue of Dhamma and not of non-Dhamma.

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"This illustration will make clear to you how Dhamma is best in this world and in the next. King Pasenadi of Kosala knows: 'The ascetic Gotama has gone forth from the neighboring clan of the Sakyans.' Now the Sakyans are vassals of the King of Kosala. They offer him humble service and salute him, rise and do him homage and pay him fitting service. And, just as the Sakyans offer the King humble service..., so likewise does the King offer humble service to the Tathagata, thinking, 'If the ascetic Gotama is well-born, I am ill-born; if the ascetic Gotama is strong, I am weak; if the ascetic Gotama is pleasant to look at, I am ill-favored; if the ascetic Gotama is influential, I am of little influence.' Now it is because of honoring the Dhamma, making much of the Dhamma, esteeming the Dhamma, doing reverent homage to the Dhamma that King Pasenadi does humble service to the Tathagata and pays him fitting service:

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"Vasettha, all of you, through of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, should reply: 'We are ascetics, followers of the Sakyan.' He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: 'I am a true son of Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this designates the Tathagata: 'The body of Dhamma', that is, 'The body of Brahma', or 'Become Dhamma', that is, 'Become Brahma'.

"There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious--and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious--and they stay like that for a very long time.

"At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male and female, beings being reckoning just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.

"Then some being of greedy nature said: 'I say, what can this be?' and tasted the savory earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavor, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavor, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result of this was that their self-luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self-luminance, the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.

"And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this savory earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. And as they did so, their bodies became courser, and a difference in looks developed among them. Some beings became good-looking, others ugly. And the good-looking ones despised the others, saying: 'We are better-looking than they are.' And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the savory earth disappeared. At this they came together and lamented, crying: 'Oh that flavor! Oh that flavor!' And as nowadays when people say: 'Oh that flavor!' when they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.

"And then, when the savory earth had disappeared, a fungus cropped up, in the manner of a mushroom. It was of a good color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. And those beings set to and ate the fungus. And this lasted for a very long time. And as they continued to feed on the fungus, so their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks increased still more. And the good-looking ones despised the others...And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the sweet fungus disappeared. Next, creeper appeared, shooting up like bamboo..., and they too were very sweet, like pure wild honey.

"And those beings set to and fed on those creepers. And as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and the difference in their looks increased still more...And they became still more arrogant, and so the creeper disappeared too. At this they came together and lamented, crying: 'Alas, our creeper's gone! What have we lost!' And so now today when people, on being asked why they are upset, say: 'Oh, what have we lost!' they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.

"And then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open spaces, free from powder and from husks, fragrant and clean-grained. and what they had taken in the evening for supper had grown again and was ripe in the morning, and what they had taken in the morning for breakfast was ripe again by evening, with no sign of reaping. And these beings set to and fed on this rice, and this lasted for a very long time. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks became even greater. And the females developed female sex-organs, and the males developed male organs. And the women became excessively preoccupied with men, and the men with women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other, passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later, because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity. But those who saw them indulging threw dust, ashes or cow-dung at them crying: 'Die, you filthy beast! How can one being do such things to another!' Just as today, in some districts, when a daughter-in-law is led out, some people throw dirt at her, some ashes, and some cow-dung, without realizing that they are repeating an ancient observance. What was considered bad form in those days is now considered good form.

"And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.

"Now it occurred to one of those beings who was inclined to laziness: 'Well now, why should I be bothered to gather rice in the evening for supper and in the morning for breakfast? Why shouldn't I gather it all at once for both meals?' And he did so. Then another one came to him and said: 'Come on, let's go rice-gathering.' 'No need, my friend, I've gathered enough for both meals.' Then the other, following his example, gathered enough rice for two days at a time, saying: 'That should be about enough.' Then another being came and said to that second one: 'Come on, let's go rice-gathering.' 'No need, my friend, I've gathered enough for two days.' However, when those beings made a store of rice and lived on that, husk-powder and husk began to envelop the grain, and where it was reaped it did not grow again, and the cut place showed, and the rice grew in separate clusters.

"And then those beings came together lamenting: 'Wicked ways have become rife among us: at first we were mind-made, feeding on delight......and the rice grows in separate clusters. So now let us divide up the rice into fields with boundaries.' So they did so.

"Then, Vasettha, one greedy-natured being, while watching over his own plot, took another plot that was not given to him, and enjoyed the fruits of it. So they seized hold of him and said: 'You've done a wicked thing, taking another's plot like that! Don't ever do such a thing again!' 'I won't', he said, but he did the same thing a second and a third time. Again he was seized and rebuked, and some hit him with their fists, some with stones, and some with sticks. And in this way, Vasettha, taking what was not given, and censuring and lying, and punishment, took their origin.

"Then those beings came together and lamented the arising of these evil things among them: taking what was not given, censuring, lying and punishment. And they thought: 'Suppose we were to appoint a certain being who would show anger where anger was due, censure those who deserved it, and banish those who deserved banishment! And in return, we would grant him a share of the rice.' So they went to the one among them who was the handsomest, the best-looking, the most pleasant and capable, and asked him to do this for them in return for a share of the rice, and he agreed.

"'The People's Choice' is the meaning of Maha-Sammata, which is the first regular title to be introduced. 'Lord Of The Fields' is the meaning of Khattiya, the second such title. And 'He Gladdens Others With Dhamma' is the meaning of Raja, the third title to be introduced. This, then, Vasettha, is the origin of the class of Khattiyas, in accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. They originated among these very same beings, like ourselves, no different, and in accordance with Dhamma, not otherwise.

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"Then some of these beings thought: 'Evil things have appeared among beings, such as taking what is not given, censuring, lying, punishment and banishment. We ought to put aside evil and unwholesome things.' And they did so. 'They Put Aside Evil And Unwholesome Things' is the meaning of Brahmin, which is the first regular title to be introduced for such people. They made leaf-huts in forest places and meditated in them. With the smoking fire gone out, with pestle cast aside, gathering alms for their evening and morning meals, they went away to a village, town or royal city to seek their food, and then they returned to their leaf-huts to meditate. People saw this a noted how they meditated. 'They Meditate' is the meaning of the Jhayaka, which is the second regular title to be introduced.

"However, some of those beings, not being able to meditate in leaf-huts, settled around towns and villages and compiled books. People saw them doing this and not meditating. 'Now These Do Not Meditate' is the meaning of Ajjhayaka, which is the third regular title to be introduced. At that time it was regarded as a low designation, but now it is the higher. This, then, Vasettha, is the origin of the class of Brahmins in accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. Their origin was from among these very same beings, like themselves, no different, and in accordance with Dhamma, not otherwise.

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"And then, Vasettha, some of those beings, having passed off, adopted various trades, and this 'Various' is the meaning of Vessa, which came to be the regular title for such people. This, then, is the origin of the class of Vessas, in accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. Their origin was from among these very same beings...

"And then, Vasettha, those beings that remained went in for hunting. 'They Are Base Who Live By The Chase', and that is the meaning of Sudda, which came to be the regular title for such people. This, then, is the origin of the class of Suddas in accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. Their origin was from among these very same beings...

"And then, Vasettha, it came about that some Khattiya, dissatisfied with his own Dhamma, went forth from the household life into homelessness, thinking: 'I will become an ascetic.' And a Brahmin did likewise, a Vessa did likewise, and so did a Sudda. And from these four classes the class of ascetics came into existence. Their origin was from among these very same beings, like themselves, no different, and in accordance with Dhamma, not otherwise.

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"And, Vasettha, a Khattiya who has led a bad life in body, speech, and thought, and who has wrong view will, in consequence of such wrong views and deeds, at the breaking up of the body after death, be reborn in a state of loss, an ill fate, the downfall, the hell-state. So too will a Brahmin, a Vessa or a Sudda.

"Likewise, a Khattiya who has led a good life in body, speech and thought, and who has right view will, in consequence of such right view and deeds, at the breaking up of the body after death, be reborn in a good destiny, in a heaven-state. So too will a Brahmin, a Vessa or a Sudda.

"And, Vasettha, whoever of these four castes, as a monk, becomes an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained to the highest goal, completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, and become liberated by the highest insight, he is declared to be chief among them in accordance with Dhamma, and not otherwise.

"Dhamma's the best thing for people In this life and the next as well.

"Vasettha, it was Brahma Sanankumara who spoke this verse:

"'The Khattiya's best among those who value clan; He with knowledge and conduct is best of gods and Men.'

"This verse was rightly sung, not wrongly, rightly spoken, not wrongly, connected with profit, not unconnected. I too say, Vasettha:

"The Khattiya's best among those who value Clan; He with knowledge and conduct is best of gods and Men."

Thus the Lord spoke, and Vasettha and Bharadvaja were delighted and rejoiced at his words.

Agganna Sutta 1

Agganna Sutta - On knowledge of Beginning

The Agganna Sutta explains this evolution in terms of a mythical story. On one occation a young Brahman,named Vasettha, joined the Buddhist Order and thereby became a monk of equal status with men from lower castes, for this he was severely reprimanded by other Brahmans. They said he had forsaken a divine and holy order; that the Brahmans were a special race born from the mouth of God. To repudiate these contentions the Buddha explained to Vasettha the true origins of humanity and said that all people had a common ancestry.

The first beings are described as sexless, vaguely shaped creatures whose bodies lacked solidity in the beginning, they fed on a savoury earth which first appeared as a scum on the ocean surface. This continued for a great length of time during which their bodies increased in solidity and diversity began to appear in their shapes. With the disappearance of the savoury earth, growths similar to mushrooms appeared in the soil and the earth's inhabitants fed upon these. After these vanished, creeping plants became the source of nourishment and finally rice. All this is said to have required great periods of time and eventually sexual characteristics developed. Following this, the words "man" and "woman" and later "people" make their first appeareance in the sutta with regards to the creatures under discussion.

In time these beings took to making huts and following this they learnt to store up rice instead of obtaining daily rice supplies. Eventually the supply of this food also became scarce. At this point they divide the land among themselves so that each has his own property. But with the establishment of property, theft arose followed by punishment and the eventual choosing of a ruler to a minister justice. Following this, a class of nobles appeared and finally division of labour occurred with the development of various trades.

Thus in the Agganna Sutta we find several features of modern evolutionary theory. The principle of gradual change over great lengths of time, the continuous development of diversified forms, and asexuality preceding sexual differentiation are all clearly stated. Furthermore, the development of plants in the sequence of scum, fungi, creepers and rice is a reasonable approximation of botanical evolution. And the description of the building of huts followed in succession by the establishment of property, law, government and division of labour is supported by contemporary historical and anthropological data.

The Sutta also shows how the basic elements of the social structure like the family came into being due to the conception of the egoistic feelings like privacy and greed which are also the results of lust and craving. Thus the separation of individuals into social units is due to a basic immorality. This separation makes the social situation more complex and leads to further social complications. Thus, due to the scarcity of rice, boundaries to rice fields appear, and with the appeareance of private property, a new set of vices like stealing come in.

Finally, in contradiction to the Hindu theory of caste, the Buddha goes on to say that the four classes of people, Brahmans, Khattiyas, Vessas and Suddas, did not become so because they were created by Brahma, but simply because of their professions. Also, the Sutta states that there is no intrinsically rigid hierarchy among these classes because it could change in differing historical contexts. Thus Buddhism gives an empirical and a social theory about the origin of class structure as opposed to the metaphysical Hindu theory of the divine origin of the classes or castes.