retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:08 am
Greetings,
TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:55 pm
The idea that the Buddha taught "Both" an intricate metaphor that doesnt actually exist and a literal thing that does exist is the Mahayana concept of non-duality on steroids.
Two suttas have already been provided which show conclusively that different audiences were taught differently. Were the pitchforks not primed, people would actually be willing to regard this as one of the strengths of the Buddha as a teacher - that he could know what teaching was most suited to the ability and capability of his audience... but today, the wannabe Dhamma police are calling such discernment in teaching "the Mahayana concept of non-duality".
Right-e-o.
Metta,
Paul.
You might as well work for Fox News since you're always just deflecting everything to the culture wars/language policing rather than looking at the points authentically.
The passage you provided was
Then you should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’ That’s how you should train. You should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by my mind, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on that.’ That’s how you should train.”
When he said this, Anāthapiṇḍika cried and burst out in tears. Venerable Ānanda said to him, “Are you failing, householder? Are you fading, householder?”
“No, sir. But for a long time I have paid homage to the Buddha and the esteemed mendicants. Yet I have never before heard such a Dhamma talk.”
“Householder, it does not occur to us to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople. Rather, we teach like this to those gone forth.”
“Well then, Master Sāriputta, let it occur to you to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople as well! There are gentlemen with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!”
I do not deny that the Buddha taught monastics and laypeople differently. What i asked was how did you get the idea that
denying rebirth completely was one of the teachings the Buddha reserved for monastics since you said people were "calling the dhamma taught to monastics secular buddhism". the sutta you provided says you should not
grasp for the other world, not that it doesn't exist at all. and you cant argue that that the translation of "grasp" really means it doesn't exist because in the same sutta in the next sentence it also says you "shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by my mind" and there is no such teaching, at least not in Theravada Buddhism, that everything you see hear and think about doesn't really exist in any way and is just some intricate metaphor.
Furthermore secular Buddhists almost always deny that the "next world" in MN 117 actually talks about the literal next life and say the Lord Buddha is really talking about something else.
And what is wrong view?
‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, micchādiṭṭhi?
‘Natthi dinnaṁ, natthi yiṭṭhaṁ, natthi hutaṁ, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko, natthi ayaṁ loko, natthi paro loko, natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lokaṁ parañca lokaṁ sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedentī’ti—
Yet you cite MN 143 and basically affirm that he actually is talking about the literal afterlife when he says "paro loko" and that denying its existence is a wrong view.
‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’
‘na paralokaṁ upādiyissāmi, na ca me paraloka nissitaṁ viññāṇaṁ bhavissatī’ti.
Just pointing that out. And MN 117 was directed to monastics in case anyone wants to go all "Going forth" Dhamma > "lay people" Dhamma.