[Buddha-l] Re: Can Buddhists quit smoking?

[Richard Hayes]

On Monday 09 July 2007 12:00, curt wrote:

> Incense is a traditional "offering" - in fact the burning of incense
> probably has it's origin as a replacement for blood sacrifice. We could
> always go back to that, and then have a barbecue (outdoors) afterwards.

I think blood sacrifice is an excellent thing to do, if one can spare a pint 
now and then. I schedule myself for about three donations a year. It's what I 
do instead of burning incense.

> As Richard points out, the issue has more to do with trends in
> architecture than anything else. Perhaps what we should really be
> focusing on is the inherent alienation from nature involved in our
> "hermetically" sealed living (and worshiping) spaces.

You'll need to reeducate a populace that whimpers if the temperature goes over 
68F or under 64F (that's 20C and 18C for those of you who prefer God's 
measuring system, now used everywhere in the world except Liberia, Myanmar 
and the United States. It's great to know the USA is keeping up with Liberia 
and Myanmar, eh?) Our collective inability to tolerate the climates that 
nature serves up have resulted in our living, working and worshiping in 
tightly sealed houses, offices and churches in which nothing natural need 
apply. I agree that it's disgusting and would add that this penchant for 
avoiding minor discomforts at all costs will probably result in our 
extinction as a species. 

> Also, the sense of smell is (I read this somewhere on the internet -
> perhaps even wikipedia - so it must be true) the sense most closely
> associated with the emotions. Burning incense is a way of
> involving/appealing to the less analytical portions of our minds.

I don't see much point in appealing to the less analytic portions of our 
mentalities. These days the non-analytic and irrational sides of our 
mentalities are working overtime. But if one did view irrationality and 
non-analyticity as a desideratum, then wearing perfume, burning incense and 
farting in small elevators would probably be the right way to promote it.

As far as Buddhist uses of incense, I believe the custom of associating 
perfuming (vaasanaa) with karma has a very long history. In the outfit to 
which I belong, we chant a verse in Pali (or recite its translation in 
English) while offering incense. The gist of the verse is that the sweet 
aroma of the incense is symbolic of the effects of good karma, which spread 
throughout the world. If one wanted to avoid burning incense, one might 
substitute good behavior for joss sticks. One could then recite a verse 
saying that acting sensibly and thoughtfully is symbolic of the smoke of 
incense. 

Incidentally, when I was practicing Korean Son we used to gather twice a day 
and chant the long and poetic section on incense from the Platform Sutra of 
the Sixth Patriarch. Because we chanted it in an English approximation of the 
Korean pronunciation of the Chinese characters of the original text, it was 
maybe four or five years before I discovered that we were chanting about 
incense. This was all the proof I needed that sometimes it is best NOT to 
understand what one is saying in a ritual.

> Also, I have found that burning incense (when combined with the right
>'t see any  mantras) has wonderful magical powers - it keeps away both demons 
and
> agnostics.

Anything keeps away demons (since they don't exist), and nothing keeps away 
agnostics (since they can be found wherever thinking people congregate). So 
perhaps the only thing we can really say about the powers of incense and 
mantras is "I don't know." Let's see, saying that would make us agnostics, 
right?

> Unfortunately, Puritanism has been active in Asia almost as long as it
> has been active in the West.

Puritanism is meaningless outside the cultural context in which it evolved. So 
I doubt very much that Puritanism has ever been active in Asia. (According to 
Sydney Ahlstrom and various other experts in the history of Christianity, no 
one used to call themselves Puritans. Like Hinayana and Quaker, Puritan was 
first used as a term of abuse by people who did not approve of the people to 
whom it was applied. Eventually, like Quaker and unlike Hinayana, the term 
came to be used more positively, and an effort was made to find a meaning for 
it. The two most common meanings assigned to the term were 1) people 
preoccupied with purity of thought and practice -- you know, people who went 
around saying "Do good, avoid harm and keep the mind pure; that is the 
teaching of all buddhas"--; and 2) Christians who had purified their practice 
of all vestiges of the papacy. 

So I guess Buddhists have pretty much always been puritans in the first 
generic sense of the word, but have never been Puritans in the specific 
sectarian sense.)

-- 
Richard P. Hayes (the P stands for Pscientific)
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico