How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?

[pink_trike]

Greetings Pink_trike,

I think you know full well that's not what Tilt was talking about...

Perhaps you could comment instead of what benefits you have received from your investigation into Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's teachings?

Metta,
Retro.

Full well? Uh, no...I'm rarely clear what people mean in forum land...are u? I'm responding to Tilt's idea of what is "wanting"...something that I consider to be much more relevant to the the conversation. "Wanting" is rarely separate from "comfort zone".

And you asked me what that was? I would have said: "not worthy of serious consideration." No need for comfort zone stuff here.

Np. Buddhism is "open source". I find your view of Buddhism to be limited and unrealistic. You may find mine to be dangerously inclusive. We are both, likely, aiming moth-like at the same truth. My guess is that we both want whatever is the most beneficial to all living beings.

[tiltbillings]

Np. Buddhism is "open source". I find your view of Buddhism to be limited and unrealistic. You may find mine to be dangerously inclusive. We probably are aiming, moth-like, at the same truth. Hopefully, we both want whatever is the most beneficial to all living beings.

You seem to be having an argument with stuff that I have not said. That can be interesting, so do not let me stop you.

[pink_trike]

[appicchato]

...I'm rarely clear what people mean in forum land...

Ain't that the truth...

[Individual]

...I'm rarely clear what people mean in forum land...

Ain't that the truth...

Now what's THAT supposed to mean?!

(just kidding )

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I've been asked to post the following correspondence between a Buddhist and Santikaro, relating to some of the views expressed in this topic.

Greetings Santikaro

I have been reading on the internet of your advising people Buddhadasa believed in literal rebirth.

Trusting you are well

Howdy ---

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

Best wishes.

In Dhamma, Santikaro

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Here's what Bhikkhu Bodhi said on the subject when i asked him regarding the evidence in the suttas of instantaneousness of rebirth/intermediate state:

There definitely seem to be suggestions in the suttas that there is a temporal gap, an intermediate state, between lives, at least with respect to rebirth in the human realm and in the case of non-returners. I have a long note to the Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Samyutta Nikaya), chapter 46, which explores this question in regard to the fivefold distinction among non-returners. I will paste it in below.

The position that rebirth is instantaneous is strongly maintained by the Theravada commentaries, but other schools of Indian Buddhism based on the early collections (pre-Mahayana) supported an intermediate state. This became a ground of contention among the Buddhist schools, sometimes generating a lot of emotional friction, but the issue seems to be given very little importance in the early discourses. Nevertheless, there are passages that suggest (quite clearly, in my opinion) that there is an intermediate state. For example, the famous Metta Sutta speaks of extending loving-kindness to 'bhuutaa vaa sambhavesii vaa' -- "to beings who have come to be and those about to come to be" -- and the suttas on nutriment say that the four kinds of nutriment are "for the maintence of those that have come to be and to assist those about to come to be." Those beings that are sambhavesii, "about to come to be" (or "seeking existence") must be an allusion to those in the intermediate state seeking a new rebirth.

See too SN 44:9, in which Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: "When a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?" The Buddha does not reject V's question by asserting that such a situation is impossible. He says, rather, that in such a situation "I declare that it is fueled by craving.382 For on that occasion craving is its fuel."

Note 382 reads:
382. Tam aha˙ ta˚hÒp›d›na˙ vad›mi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Therav›da orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

I have also found evidence for beings in this state from the reported rebirth memories of people who (without meditative experience) can recollect their previous life and death. Several cases I have read of this type report that the being, after passing away, spends some time moving about in a subtle body (identical in form with their previous body, hence with a sense of the same personal identity) until they find themselves drawn towards a particular couple, who then become their new parents. Some cases like this are included in Francis Story's book, Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience (published by the Buddhist Publcation Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka).

See too Peter Harvey's book, The Selfless Mind (Curzon) which I refer to in the note below.
65 This fivefold typology of nonreturners recurs at 48:15, 24, 66; 51:26; 54:5; and 55:25. Spk explains the antar›parinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na in the interval”) as one reborn in the Pure Abodes who attains arahantship during the first half of the life span. This type is subdivided into three, depending on whether arahantship is reached: (i) on the very day of rebirth; (ii) after one or two hundred aeons have elapsed; or (iii) after four hundred aeons have elapsed. The upahaccaparinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na upon landing”) is explained as one who attains arahantship after passing the first half of the life span. For Spk, the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer without exertion”) and the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer with exertion”) then become two modes in which the first two types of nonreturners attain the goal. This explanation originates from Pp 16–17 (commented on at Pp-a 198–201). However, not only does this account of the first two types disregard the literal meaning of their names, but it also overrides the sequential and mutually exclusive nature of the five types as delineated elsewhere in the suttas (see below).
If we understand the term antar›parinibb›yı literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibb›na in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state. The upahaccaparinibb›yı then becomes one who attains Nibb›na “upon landing” or “striking ground” in the new existence, i.e., almost immediately after taking rebirth. The next two terms designate two types who attain arahantship in the course of the next life, distinguished by the amount of effort they must make to win the goal. The last, the uddha˙sota akani˛˛hag›mı, is one who takes rebirth in successive Pure Abodes, completes the full life span in each, and finally attains arahantship in the Akani˛˛ha realm, the highest Pure Abode.
This interpretation, adopted by several non-Therav›da schools of early Buddhism, seems to be confirmed by the Purisagati Sutta (AN IV 70–74), in which the simile of the flaming chip suggests that the seven types (including the three kinds of antar›parinibb›yı) are mutually exclusive and have been graded according to the sharpness of their faculties. Additional support comes from AN II 134,25–29, which explains the antar›parinibb›yı as one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth (upapattisa˙yojana) without yet having abandoned the fetter of existence (bhavasa˙yojana). Though the Therav›din proponents argue against this interpretation of antar›parinibb›yı (e.g., at Kv 366), the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour. For a detailed discussion, see Harvey, The Selfless Mind, pp. 98–108.
AN II 155–56 draws an alternative distinction between the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı and the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı: the former reaches arahantship through meditation on the “austere” meditation subjects such as the foulness of the body, the perception of the repulsiveness of food, discontent with the whole world, the perception of impermanence in all formations, and mindfulness of death; the latter, through the four jh›nas.

[Ben]

Howdy ---

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

Best wishes.

In Dhamma, Santikaro

Metta,
Retro.

That's actually excellent advice. And its a long way from saying the Buddha didn't teach rebirth or that it meant something for one group of disciple and something else for another group of disciple.
'wait and see', I'm happy to do just that.
Kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

Yes, it was a pleasant surprise. I found it quite "untainted".

Metta,
Retro.

[clw_uk]

Indeed so why bother having a view of Rebirth at all then?

[tiltbillings]

Indeed so why bother having a view of Rebirth at all then?

Because the Buddha taught it as the way things work and it helps put one's life into a broader perspective.

[clw_uk]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

[Peter]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

Since when did "being happy with it" constitute a valid argument? I am happy eating bacon but that doesn't make it good nor healthy. You are clearly happy with your view; no one here disputes that. The dispute is whether your view is in line with Buddhist teachings or not.

[tiltbillings]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

"Wait and see" is a view. My point is that rebirth is what the Buddha taught, it is tied up directly with paticcasamuppada, but no one is forcing you to do anything, and you can believe what you wish.

[clw_uk]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

Since when did "being happy with it" constitute a valid argument? I am happy eating bacon but that doesn't make it good nor healthy. You are clearly happy with your view; no one here disputes that. The dispute is whether your view is in line with Buddhist teachings or not.

If someone says "wait and see" then, to me, it is saying that the person isnt bothered about if there is or isnt rebirth, God etc and is comfortable with it being an unknown


To me one cant say "wait and see" and then say "there is rebirth" since the two sentences contradict each other


As for the slightly different topic of my view, 4nt's, i think its safe to say that it is in line

metta

[clw_uk]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

"Wait and see" is a view. My point is that rebirth is what the Buddha taught, it is tied up directly with paticcasamuppada, but no one is forcing you to do anything, and you can believe what you wish.

I have said that paticcasamuppada has "rebirth". I see it the same way that Ajahn Buddhadasa and Ajahn Chah taught it


Therefore the Buddha didn’t discriminate between laymen and monks,
he taught all people to practise to know the truth of the san˙kha¯ras. When
we know this truth, we let them go. If we know the truth there will be no
more becoming or birth. How is there no more birth? There is no way
for birth to take place because we fully know the truth of san˙kha¯ras. If
we fully know the truth, then there is peace. Having or not having, it’s
all the same. Gain and loss are one. The Buddha taught us to know
this. This is peace; peace from happiness, unhappiness, gladness and
sorrow.

We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it. If there is no clinging to that gladness there is no birth; if there is
clinging, this is called ‘birth’. So if we get something, we aren’t born
(into gladness). If we lose, then we aren’t born (into sorrow). This
is the birthless and the deathless. Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san˙kha¯ras.

So the Buddha said. “There is no more becoming for me, finished
is the holy life, this is my last birth.” There! He knew the birthless and
the deathless. This is what the Buddha constantly exhorted his disciples
to know. This is the right practice. If you don’t reach it, if you don’t
reach the Middle Way, then you won’t transcend suffering

Ajahn Chah


metta

[clw_uk]

And from Ajahn Buddhadasa



Birth is perpetual suffering. True happiness consists in eliminating the false idea of "I". Mankind's problems reduce to the problem of suffering, whether inflicted by another or by oneself.
Everyday language-Dharma language: In every day language the term birth refers simply to physical birth from a mother's body: in Dharma language birth refers to a mental event arising our of ignorance, craving, and clinging.
Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving.
The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth.
Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching.
The subject we shall discuss today is one, which I feel everyone ought to recognize as pressing, namely the following two statements made by the Buddha:
"Birth is perpetual suffering. (Dukkha jati punappunam)" and
"True happiness consists in eliminating the false idea of 'I'.
(Asmimanassa vinayo etam ve paramam sukham)"


Mankind's problems reduce to the problem of suffering, whether inflicted by another or by oneself by way of mental defilements (kilesa). This is the primary problem for every human being, because no one wants suffering. In the above statements the Buddha equates suffering with birth: "Birth is perpetual suffering"; and he equates happiness with the complete giving up of the false idea "I," "myself," "I am," "I exist".
The statement that birth is the cause of suffering is complex, having several levels of meaning. The main difficulty lies in the interpretation of the word "birth". Most of us don't understand what the word birth refers to and are likely to take it in the everyday sense of physical birth from a mothers body. The Buddha taught that birth is perpetual suffering. Is it likely that in saying this he was referring to physical birth? Think it over. If he was referring to physical birth, it is unlikely that he would have gone on to say: "True happiness consists in eliminating the false idea "I" because this statement clearly indicates that what constitutes the suffering is the false idea "I". When the idea "I" has been completely eradicated, that is two happiness. So suffering actually consists in the misconception "I," "I am," "I have". The Buddha taught: "Birth is perpetual suffering." What is meant here by the word "birth"? Clearly "birth" refers to nothing other than the arising of the idea "I" (asmimana).


Snip

So suffering actually consists in the misconception "I," "I am," "I have". The Buddha taught: "Birth is perpetual suffering." What is meant here by the word "birth"? Clearly "birth" refers to nothing other than the arising of the idea "I" (asmimana).



http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... r_of_I.htm

[Peter]

I think it's important to differentiate between "believing in X" versus "holding a view regarding X". I think these are two different, yet related, things. I think one can neither believe nor not believe in X while still holding a view of X. I think they are related because one's beliefs do tend to influence and shape one's views.

Bob believes bears are dangerous. When Bob finds himself near a bear, he acts as if bears were dangerous, taking the relevant precautions.

Ted doesn't believe bears are dangerous. The park ranger told Ted that if he finds himself near a bear he should act as if it was dangerous, taking the relevant precautions. If Ted considers the park ranger knowledgeable and worth listening to then he will act as if bears were dangerous, regardless of what he himself believes. He understands his own belief may be in error and he trusts the park ranger.

Mike doesn't believe anything about bears one way or the other. Since Mike lives in the city, he doesn't find it important to hold a belief on bears. Then one day he moves to the country. That park ranger tells him he should act as if bears were dangerous, taking the relevant precautions.

I don't find the Buddha talks much about beliefs. But I do find he talk about how we should act. He says we should act as if there will be birth after death.

To me, hearing Ven. Buddadasa say "wait and see" does not tell me anything about whether he lives and teaches according to Right View.

Oh, and to complete the analogy... Steve knows and sees for himself that bears are dangerous. When Steve finds himself near a bear, he acts as if bears were dangerous, taking the relevant precautions.

Also Bob, Ted, & Mike don't have any first-hand knowledge of bears. Steve does and the park ranger claims to have.

[clw_uk]

Hey Peter

I think it's important to differentiate between "believing in X" versus "holding a view regarding X". I think these are two different, yet related, things. I think one can neither believe nor not believe in X while still holding a view of X. I think they are related because one's beliefs do tend to influence and shape one's views.

To me however if you hold a view of there being rebirth you believe it at some level. Could you hold a view of God "There is God" and yet not believe in God?

I don't find the Buddha talks much about beliefs. But I do find he talk about how we should act. He says we should act as if there will be birth after death.

Indeed he does but he also taught that the path is progressive, that views need to be left behind sooner or later. If one has a good understanding of Dhamma then one can let go of a view or belief of rebirth after death without falling back into the net of another view such as annihilationism, nihilism etc and still practice the NEFP (with the right view of the 4nt's)

Also the Buddha taught other ways of being moral and increasing wholesome mind states without appeal to rebirth

the householders of Bamboo Gate in the Veludvareyya Sutta

"Here, householders, a Noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now, if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering -- that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict on another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now, if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict on another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me....Having reflected thus, he abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me....Having reflected thus, he abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends with divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me....Having reflected thus, he abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me....Having reflected thus, he abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now, if I were address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict on another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me' Having reflected thus, he abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects."


However he did say that rebirth does promote wholesome states as well

To name one sutta


MN 68

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"

lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt

To me, hearing Ven. Buddadasa say "wait and see" does not tell me anything about whether he lives and teaches according to Right View.

Read some of his work and judge for yourself

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... r_of_I.htm


metta

[Individual]

But if one takes the view of "wait and see" then one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth since that person is happy with it being an unknown

"Wait and see" is a view. My point is that rebirth is what the Buddha taught, it is tied up directly with paticcasamuppada, but no one is forcing you to do anything, and you can believe what you wish.

Buddhadhasa didn't take a wait and see approach about dependent origination, human reproduction and evolution, etc.. His "wait and see" approach is about the nature of post mortem continuuance, the idea of the gandabbha being something other than sperm, the idea of a mystical "intermediate state" between lives... even the mere idea of an individual life after this one which connected with the previous, in the same manner in which an illusory personality is connected throughout a single lifetime.