It declares it a speculative wrong view, in the discussion of eternalistic views prior to the quote. It's just that you have declared an Atta that is reincarnated, merely calling it not-an-Atta.tiltbillings wrote:
Sure, but there is nothing in that that negates rebirth (without atta).
How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Last edited by stuka on Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Thank you for sharing your opinion. No reincarnation. No need for it and no need for your clever "not-an-Atta."stuka wrote:It declares it a speculative wrong view, in the discussion of eternalistic views prior to the quote. It's just that you have declared an Atta that is reincarnated, merely calling it not-an-Atta.tiltbillings wrote:
Sure, but there is nothing in that that negates rebirth (without atta).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Greetings Santikaro,
As you may have seen from my postings, the problem I have with the term "rebirth" is that it assumes something that can be "re'd", whereas there is no "re'ing" in idappaccayata.
Metta,
Retro.
Well said, and thank you for valuable perspective on Ajahn Buddhadasa's teachingSantikaro wrote:I heard him say, sometimes w/ me translating for him, that there's no rebirth; however, his meaning was that there's no rebirth of a being or atta. In private conversation when I tried, somewhat rigidly and dogmatically, to pin him down about what happens at death, he responded that it depends on idappaccayata. Of course, to assume that there was an atta or somebody to end at death is also refuted by the Buddha. In this, where is the Middle Way?
As you may have seen from my postings, the problem I have with the term "rebirth" is that it assumes something that can be "re'd", whereas there is no "re'ing" in idappaccayata.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Ah, I see. Taking this in conjunction with something you said earlier...Santikaro wrote:In the "three lifetimes interpretation" (found in the Visuddhimagga) of the classic paticcasamuppada sequence, rebirth & dukkha occur in the future, which is taken to be a life after the physical death of the entity or whatever that was craving & clinging. Assuming that one entity does the craving & clinging and another experiences the rebirth & dukkha, how can either of them fully realize the causal relations?
Tan Ajahn considered the 1st nyana not relevant to awakening and then criticized the 3-lifetime model for being dependent on the 1st nyana? Could you explain this apparent circular logic?Santikaro wrote:The usual citation is to the first of the 3 nyanas under the bodhi tree, but that overlooks the not-yet-awakened (tho almost) situation of the bodhisatta. Tan Ajahn considered the 3rd nyana far more important, that is, causal for the great awakening.
I suppose if I thought liberation depended on my being able to recall past lives and I also thought my chances of ever developing the ability to recall past lives were slim to none I might be tempted to reinterpret the Teachings in a way more suitable for my situation. I hope that's not what we're talking about here.
I have heard this said before but remain confused as to what it means. Does it mean the Buddha lied?Santikaro wrote:Tan Ajahn took [references to sotapanna, etc.] to be conventional comments, not essential liberating truths.
Seems to me as well. But people in online forums love to discuss theories and rarely discuss anything practical. We get occasional flashes of practicality which for me makes it worthwhile to hang around.Santikaro wrote:Seems to me that the emphasis of the Buddha's teaching is seeing the impermanence, concoctedness, and selflessness of the stuff going on more than getting certain theories about the stuff right.
Thank you for taking the time to address my queries. I am finding it helpful.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Greetings,
I just wanted to draw attention to the following post.
"Don't know", "Don't care" and "Wait and see" are neither eternalism, nor annihilationism... thus are not Wrong View.
Metta,
Retro.
I just wanted to draw attention to the following post.
I think this is an important point, and accords with the "wait and see" approach that was mentioned earlier. The Brahmajala Sutta, where an exhaustive list of 62 (?) wrong views are given, talk about soul theories (either eternalism, or annihilationism).stuka wrote:There is, however, a constant straw man argument pushed by evangelicals that claims that those of us who do not subscribe to reincarnation-speculative-view somehow deny reincarnation, i.e., take the extreme position "there is not reincarnation". This is a straw man. The Buddha pointed out that both the pro-reincarnationist, eternalist position and the anti-reincarnationst, aniihilationist position are wrong speculative views. His Noble teachings transcended both positions.
Of course, when this is pointed out to reincarnationist evangelicals, they continue with their same straw man argument as though nothing had been clarified for them at all.
"Don't know", "Don't care" and "Wait and see" are neither eternalism, nor annihilationism... thus are not Wrong View.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
As moderator: Please keep posting to the subject, and please refrain from making the argument about individuals.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
but who is Patrick, Peter or Jennifer. It doesn't care!!. One must use hiw own understanding and faith. What Buddha teached was not Theravada or Mahayana but the end of dukkha. There is not end of dukkha without emptiness, and this is the teaching of Buddha summarizing the whole Tipitaka. All efforts, knowledge and moral discipline, all them are developed in order to realize emptiness. In sunnata there is not death therefore there is not rebirth. For this reason this is the end of suffering. Rebirth only exists when there is ignorance.Patrick said to me Tan Ajahn Buddhadasa was Mahayana because he taught sunyata.
From here, we can start two ways to understand dhamma:
One, if we talk from ignorance instead from emptiness, then rebirth becomes logical. While the end of ignorance has not beed fulfilled then there is the recollection of beings of MN.79. This recollection is the same of one second before, minute, hour, day or year before. All them are mind-made images which have been built in my mind following the thread of "me" and "mine".
"Udayi, it’s from me, who recollect, one birth, two births,... recollect the manifold previous births with all modes and details, that this question about the beginning should have been asked. I could have convinced your mind answering a question about the beginning.[...]. Yet Udayi, let alone the beginning and let alone the end, I will teach you, when this is, this comes to be: when this arise, this arises. When this is not present, this is not, and when this cease, this ceases."
The second, if we talk from emptiness then rebirth didn't exists. Because that recollection of beings is not of "me" and "my" but just become a recollection of beings. These images are not sustained in the individual mind but just in the Mind. Such understanding will appear by panna, and in this way Buddha teach Udayi to be focused in the present moment, in where panna can arise. Getting away the protagonist of his thoughts at each moment so panna can arise freely to show him truth and emptiness.
When this understanding arises it doesn't care translations because the truth is auto-evident. Suttas are not truth depending of translators but because are conductive to emptiness. Translators are only the cleaning staff. Despite Suttas are partiallly collected, sometimes not rightly translated or even manipulated, while truth inside them can be seen then this is enough. Translators can be good or worse but the main thing is one must clean his own glasses. If our glasses are clean then we can recognize the value of any old object despite the acumulation of dust or later additions of third people. One doesn't need an expert knowledge of Pali to recognize in Buddhadhasa a wonderful teaching, a rare master able to clarify what is dark and difficult to clarify. There is not many people like him in the Buddhist History. Even somebody can say that maybe he used badly this or that Pali term but such person didn't understand nothing at all.
best,
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hi Zerotime
But you are right, bhavana is the engine that generates liberative punna and that's what all of us should be doing.
Metta
Ben
Patrick is actually Patrick Kearney, a highly respected lay vipassana teacher in Australia.zerotime wrote:but who is Patrick, Peter or Jennifer. It doesn't care!!.Patrick said to me Tan Ajahn Buddhadasa was Mahayana because he taught sunyata.
But you are right, bhavana is the engine that generates liberative punna and that's what all of us should be doing.
Metta
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
I hope that neither am I. The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach. I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.tiltbillings wrote:Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.Present wrote:Tiltbillingstiltbillings wrote: Buddhadasa followers aggressively pushing what they said were Buddhadasa's views as if they were the only truly true way to approach the Buddha's Dhamma, anything else being simply wrong.
Respectfully, how could that be?
There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding. It's not just the ideas that are "right," but how they are held & presented. Anatta is considered right understanding but wielded as a 'weapon of the tongue' it becomes wrong understanding.
Rebirth -- in the conventional, literal sense -- is also considered right understanding. Note in 'The Great Forty' (MN 117) the distinction b/w worldly/conventional right understanding and transcendent/liberating right understanding.
May all beings be free of being beings.
Nothing is worth clinging to as me or mine.
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Santikaro wrote:I hope that neither am I. The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach. I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.tiltbillings wrote:tiltbillings wrote: Buddhadasa followers aggressively pushing what they said were Buddhadasa's views as if they were the only truly true way to approach the Buddha's Dhamma, anything else being simply wrong.
Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.
There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding. It's not just the ideas that are "right," but how they are held & presented. Anatta is considered right understanding but wielded as a 'weapon of the tongue' it becomes wrong understanding.
Rebirth -- in the conventional, literal sense -- is also considered right understanding. Note in 'The Great Forty' (MN 117) the distinction b/w worldly/conventional right understanding and transcendent/liberating right understanding.
May all beings be free of being beings.
Again, Santikaro, no one here who defers to Buddhadasa's teachings is taking an "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" attitude; the accusation is merely a straw man.
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
stuka wrote:Peter wrote:He taught that views get left behind by one who has known and seen, aka one who is sotapanna or higher. Are you claiming to be sotapanna or higher?[The Buddha] taught that the path is progressive, that views need to be left behind sooner or later.
Your direct source for this claim, please.
Peter
Again, where in the Suttas are you claiming that the Buddha says that one must be a sotapanna in order to shed any of the sixty-two speculative views?
There are examples all over the Suttas of persons -- a veritable parade of Brahmins, Jains, householders, kings, beggars, and thieves -- who, after having spoken to the Buddha, have given up their speculative views and taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, both as lay followers and as members of the community of monks. Did the Naked Dog-Duty Ascetic suddenly become a sotapanna when he gave up his speculative view and joined the Buddha?
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
tiltbillings wrote:Thank you for sharing your opinion. No reincarnation. No need for it and no need for your clever "not-an-Atta."stuka wrote:It declares it a speculative wrong view, in the discussion of eternalistic views prior to the quote. It's just that you have declared an Atta that is reincarnated, merely calling it not-an-Atta.tiltbillings wrote:
Sure, but there is nothing in that that negates rebirth (without atta).
You can call it "re-birth" if you like, or you can call it "reincarnation", if you like, and you can call it an "Atta" if you like, or you can call it "not-an-Atta", or "re-linking Consciousness", if you like, but you are theorizing identical processes based upon the same speculative view, and merely slapping a different label on it. Buddhadasa clearly alluded to that sort of thing when he asked "What is it that is reborn?"
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
I'm not going so far as saying 1st nyana is irrelevant, it might be supportive, but it isn't the fully liberating nyana. His criticisms of the 3-lifetime interpretation weren't, to my memory, based on his understanding of the 1st nyana.Peter wrote:Ah, I see. Taking this in conjunction with something you said earlier...Santikaro wrote:In the "three lifetimes interpretation" (found in the Visuddhimagga) of the classic paticcasamuppada sequence, rebirth & dukkha occur in the future, which is taken to be a life after the physical death of the entity or whatever that was craving & clinging. Assuming that one entity does the craving & clinging and another experiences the rebirth & dukkha, how can either of them fully realize the causal relations?
Tan Ajahn considered the 1st nyana not relevant to awakening and then criticized the 3-lifetime model for being dependent on the 1st nyana? Could you explain this apparent circular logic?Santikaro wrote:The usual citation is to the first of the 3 nyanas under the bodhi tree, but that overlooks the not-yet-awakened (tho almost) situation of the bodhisatta. Tan Ajahn considered the 3rd nyana far more important, that is, causal for the great awakening.
I don't think that's what I am talking about. As for others, who is to know but them, if they are sufficiently mindful?Peter wrote:I suppose if I thought liberation depended on my being able to recall past lives and I also thought my chances of ever developing the ability to recall past lives were slim to none I might be tempted to reinterpret the Teachings in a way more suitable for my situation. I hope that's not what we're talking about here.
Conventional does not mean untrue or dishonest. Conventional -- sometimes referred to as 'relative truth' but I'm not trying to set up any absolute truths -- is in terms of persons, beings, and entities that do things like karma, birth, death, arguing, denying, believing, wondering, and confusing.Peter wrote:I have heard this said before but remain confused as to what it means. Does it mean the Buddha lied?Santikaro wrote:Tan Ajahn took [references to sotapanna, etc.] to be conventional comments, not essential liberating truths.
Is there a way to approach online forums as practice rather than papanca? For me, they can be opportunities for service, patience, being mindful of opinions & reactions, etc. But they can also become -- speaking for myself -- escapist, obsessive, and distracting from the middle way. I guess, once again, it's wise to be ever mindful of motivations and somewhat skeptical of our rationalizations, which are creative, self-serving, and convincing. Oh my!Peter wrote:Seems to me as well. But people in online forums love to discuss theories and rarely discuss anything practical. We get occasional flashes of practicality which for me makes it worthwhile to hang around.Santikaro wrote:Seems to me that the emphasis of the Buddha's teaching is seeing the impermanence, concoctedness, and selflessness of the stuff going on more than getting certain theories about the stuff right.
Thank you for taking the time to address my queries. I am finding it helpful.
Thanks, too, for the polite give & take.
Nothing is worth clinging to as me or mine.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
You lived with your teacher, heard his words, seen him day in and out, you trusted him and he trusted you. That is something very different, very special.Santikaro wrote:I hope that neither am I.tiltbillings wrote:
Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.
I would hope that would be the case, and it is good to hear.The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach.
Ven Buddhadasa’s views are welcome here as part of the larger, ongoing civil discussion of the Buddha’s teachings. I would see Ven Buddhadasa’s teachings as a way of understanding the Buddha’s teachings. My preferences run more in line with Vens Mahasi Sayadaw and U Pandita understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. These two differing ways neither exclude nor negate each other. I would like to think we can express our understandings of our respective points of view, learning from both the differences and from where they say much the same things. We can disagree with each other without being at each other’s throats, and, Santikaro, from reading what you say, I think that is highly possible. Thank you.I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.
There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding. It's not just the ideas that are "right," but how they are held & presented. Anatta is considered right understanding but wielded as a 'weapon of the tongue' it becomes wrong understanding.
Rebirth -- in the conventional, literal sense -- is also considered right understanding. Note in 'The Great Forty' (MN 117) the distinction b/w worldly/conventional right understanding and transcendent/liberating right understanding.
May all beings be free of being beings.
tilt
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Present wrote:Santikaro,Santikaro wrote:Yes, hard to ignore those passages. They are rather common. But what do they mean?
The Buddha informed us at the end of one sutta in the MN why he disclosed destinations, and the reason was to inspire faith.
I trust one of our dhamma friends here knows the passage & discourse and can post it.
MN 68
lofty"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"
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”