Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

robertk wrote: You're right, only the missionary position for me from now on, plus any signs of pleasure from her , say little gasps, and I'll whip it out and threaten total abstention. That should do it.

Ah, but then maybe she'll leave you, and at last you'll be free to ordain! Great progress will have been made! And if she suffers because of the breakup -- well, the blame is on her for having abandoned the path of virtue.

Or, alternatively, she can opt to remain in an intimacy-free, emotionally sterile "relationship", and by conscientiously stifling her desires will accumulate some merit for the next life.

Better to ordain if you want to go down that path

With metta

Matheesha

It seems there is a bit of mockery about renunciation going on in this thread but I might be misunderstanding, there is subtle humour being used. In any case we all (well factors such as panna and virya do it) decide what kind of behaviour in body, speech and mind, what kind of volitions, what kind of lobha we are comfortable with accumulating on and on and on out of desire for comfort and to fit in with society's ways, and where there is aspiration to give them up or challenge their pull. That is the opportunity that is provided by being born in the human realm with a sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, and fulfilled to a greater or lesser degree or in some cases completely missed. It's fascinating!

Not intending to mock renunciation. My point, FWIW, was that relationships by nature are involved with lobha -- it's practically the fuel that sustains them --and if one sets about trying to eliminate it without the partner's consent, the relationship will either end or suffer. Some rather monstrous situations can be envisaged. What makes for a happy marriage or romantic partnership isn't always (at least at the outset) conducive to swift spiritual progress, and vice versa.

In any case we all (well factors such as panna and virya do it) decide what kind of behaviour in body, speech and mind, what kind of volitions, what kind of lobha we are comfortable with accumulating on and on and on out of desire for comfort and to fit in with society's ways, and where there is aspiration to give them up or challenge their pull. That is the opportunity that is provided by being born in the human realm with a sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, and fulfilled to a greater or lesser degree or in some cases completely missed.

Lazy_eye wrote:Not intending to mock renunciation. My point, FWIW, was that relationships by nature are involved with lobha -- it's practically the fuel that sustains them --and if one sets about unilaterally trying to eliminate it without the partner's consent, the relationship will either end or suffer. Some rather monstrous situations can be envisaged. What makes for a happy marriage or romantic partnership isn't always (at least at the outset) conducive to swift spiritual progress, and vice versa.

Yes, well said. I'm finally learning this after several relationships and one marriage than ended (well, is in the process of ending) because I am basically a person who is very, very happy by himself, and has a kind of natural inclination to aspire for various forms of renunciation that most people think are crazy or unhealthy. (See my "masturbating without a fantasy" post for example.) It will be interesting to see whether I have finally learned my lesson and can remain single (or possibly ordain) or will the accumulated defilements pull me back into another relationship. Of course there's no way to know, but it's very interesting and I am staying on my toes!

Your post was very, very helpful to me, thanks. "If one sets about unilaterally trying to eliminate it without the partner's consent...." Well said. Of course that was probably Robert K's point as well.

Having said that, it might be interesting to look at whether a sutta that is, as Cooran said, "upalatable" to modern sensibilities is being explained away or interpretted too freely for that reason.

Phil, your post was helpful to me also. As a married layperson (with a strong interest in/respect for the arts, including theatre) I struggle a great deal with the topics raised in this thread.

Whether you decide to ordain or not, may you find happiness in the path that you choose.

Cruel actors often engage in self-destructive behavior here and now.

So what is the general interpretation of "hell of laughter"?

YouthThunder wrote:So what is the general interpretation of "hell of laughter"?

Really great post by Phil up there at 12:15 am by the way. That hit the spot.

I've always had trouble with this passage, as an actor can inspire both skilful and unskilful reflection.


What is apparent though is that for some reason actors were looked down upon in ancient societies, for example in the roman republic/empire. It seems this pattern was around in India as well.

darvki wrote: Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter." Talaputa Sutta, SN 42.2

There are two things to consider when reading this sutta:

1. The context clearly refers to comedians and not actors in general. At the beginning of this sutta it is stated that Talaputa is one who "makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality".

3. It is an isolated teaching that, to my knowledge, is not found anywhere else in the suttas. In the suttas, there are plenty of references to hell as a likely destination for those with wrong view or those who break the precepts. There can be no doubt that those are Buddhist teachings. But the Talaputa Sutta is the only sutta I'm aware of which says that comedians go to hell for making other people laugh. When a teaching is isolated to one sutta and not echoed anywhere else in the canon, that should make you stop and think. It could have been a later addition to the canon, or maybe it was given to a very specific individual for a very specific reason.

It is the screenwriters / writers who put the inspiring stories together, not the actors. The actors chief job is to deceive the people that it is real, so that they get into the story, so to speak. If it is a good story, I don't see anything wrong with acting / actors. However, there are some actors and others who are not actors for a living but have good acting skills, who are good at deception. They can lie with a straight face. We have all known at least a few people like that and they are not much fun to be around for a long time.

This is not to say that all actors do that, though. I am sure the vast majority lead normal lives when they are not acting and don't use their skills in a harmful way.

I wonder whether I misunderstand the sutta.
This is an old thread so I'd like to ask (for confirmation) those who commented recently (clw_uk, waterchan, David N. Snyder.)
After reading the sutta, according to it, you guys think actors go to hell? Seriously?

vesak2014 wrote:I wonder whether I misunderstand the sutta.
This is an old thread so I'd like to ask (for confirmation) those who commented recently (clw_uk, waterchan, David N. Snyder.)
After reading the sutta, according to it, you guys think actors go to hell? Seriously?

Who can say


If we take the position of all suttas being authentic, the Buddha never lying and rebirth postmortem being true, then yes actors go to hell.


Or is that sutta inauthentic? However if it is, how do we know what other suttas are authentic and which are embellished?

When Ben Kingsley did the movie "Gandhi", did he create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

When Liam Neeson did the movies "Schindler's List" and "Les Miserables", did he create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

When Keanu Reeves did the movie "Little Budha", did he create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

When Richard Farnsworth did the movie "The Straight Story", did he create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

When Richard Farnsworth did the movie "The Straight Story", did he create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

When Audrey Tautou did the movie "Amelie", did she create karma that will contribute for his rebirth in hell?

I'm running out of movies. But wouldn't you agree that, if actors do generate karma with their work, it is contingent to the intention of that actor? Isn't karma intention, after all?