The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Dweller »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:30 am "This person here is capable of understanding the Dhamma." So, aiming at Suppabuddha the leper, he gave a step-by-step talk, i.e., he proclaimed a talk on generosity, on virtue, on heaven; he declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensuality, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when the Blessed One knew that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elevated, & clear, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye, in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I know that this is just a first step... but aren't we all just after this?

The graduated talk is one that the Buddha often delivered to lay people (which I assume most of us on the forum are).

Working on sila & right effort 24/7... contemplating as the Buddha instructed... who could ask or insist on more?

Put the right actions in and the Buddha guarantees the results.
Knowledge of every segment of this step-by-step talk needs to be expanded to deal with new situations and when one gets more advanced.

Also, Buddha estimated this man was capable of understanding dhamma, while most people aren't.

Such talk will not have so positive effects even on large majority of those capable of understanding the dhamma.

However, I do think things should be made much more simple for lay people. Most are not capable of doing more than dana and observing sila with the aim of getting good rebirth.

Modern teachers should be more aware of this and offer better guidance for such people.

Then, those who are ready can move to more complex things.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by BrokenBones »

Dweller wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:15 am
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:30 am "This person here is capable of understanding the Dhamma." So, aiming at Suppabuddha the leper, he gave a step-by-step talk, i.e., he proclaimed a talk on generosity, on virtue, on heaven; he declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensuality, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when the Blessed One knew that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elevated, & clear, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye, in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I know that this is just a first step... but aren't we all just after this?

The graduated talk is one that the Buddha often delivered to lay people (which I assume most of us on the forum are).

Working on sila & right effort 24/7... contemplating as the Buddha instructed... who could ask or insist on more?

Put the right actions in and the Buddha guarantees the results.
Knowledge of every segment of this step-by-step talk needs to be expanded to deal with new situations and when one gets more advanced.

Also, Buddha estimated this man was capable of understanding dhamma, while most people aren't.

Such talk will not have so positive effects even on large majority of those capable of understanding the dhamma.

However, I do think things should be made much more simple for lay people. Most are not capable of doing more than dana and observing sila with the aim of getting good rebirth.

Modern teachers should be more aware of this and offer better guidance for such people.

Then, those who are ready can move to more complex things.
🤔

Generosity & sila leads to concentration which leads to insight. I think it's a devaluation of the Buddha's words by insisting his teachings aren't complete.

Do you really think that generosity & sila are easy?

Simple... yes... but not easy.

Why concentrate on more 'complex' things before stream entry is attained?

If somebody is already there... great... but if not... worrying over the 'complex' is just playing intellectual games.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

"As the Buddha himself admitted, it's not simple." ~~~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu (August 24, 2007)


  • Those are some of the lessons that you can derive from what seems like a very abstract teaching on dependent co-arising. It is abstract. It's put out as a list and it's a very convoluted one. As the Buddha himself admitted, it's not simple. It's like a tangled bird's nest, he said, or a knotted ball of string. But you can pull on a few strands, pull out a few of the twigs, and you find that even the individual strands and twigs are really helpful in putting an end to suffering, teaching you how to think and act and even breathe in ways that can bring suffering to an end.
    Dhamma Talks by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ions4.html
Last edited by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta on Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by mikenz66 »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 am Generosity & sila leads to concentration which leads to insight. I think it's a devaluation of the Buddha's words by insisting his teachings aren't complete.
I have faith that the Buddha's teachings are complete. Whether what is preserved in the suttas is complete and/or understandable without examining history, context, and so on it a different question.

:heart:
Mike
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by BrokenBones »

mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:13 am
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 am Generosity & sila leads to concentration which leads to insight. I think it's a devaluation of the Buddha's words by insisting his teachings aren't complete.
I have faith that the Buddha's teachings are complete. Whether what is preserved in the suttas is complete and/or understandable without examining history, context, and so on it a different question.

:heart:
Mike
To be honest Mike... it doesn't sound like you find the Suttas are complete.

Even a simple example of the Buddha's own words seems to send people running for additional instruction and complication... from the 'ancients' perhaps.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by mikenz66 »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:15 am To be honest Mike... it doesn't sound like you find the Suttas are complete.

Even a simple example of the Buddha's own words seems to send people running for additional instruction and complication... from the 'ancients' perhaps.
It seems unlikely that the suttas are a literal recordings. Hence my comments above. And hence one looks for clues where one can. And since the texts are recorded in an ancient language, almost all translators (including EBT enthusiasts) make some use of Commentaries to work out the meaning of certain words.

A caution from elsewhere:
Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:17 pmThey quote things like the quote that says something like "I don't have a closed fist with my teachings," as if "the suttas" are "the teachings of the Buddha."
The reality is much more complicated. As I quoted over here: viewtopic.php?p=629559#p629559
Sujato wrote: Often Buddhist seem to assume that nothing has happened in the last 2500 years. That the Buddha taught, and "this is what the Buddha taught". And somehow it got from there to here. And we're not really interested in why or how that happened .... many things have happened, and obviously those things that have happened have shaped the message ....
I do agree with your point that some aspects of the teachings, such as basic sila, right effort, and simple contemplations are fairly clear cut, and those should keep most of us occupied for some time. But beyond that, such things as the details of dependent origination, the nature of jhana, and so on, are not so clear cut. Hence the various differences in interpretation.

[There is also the separate question of how important community and guidance are for progress on the path. Some texts suggest that those are very important.]

Of course, the positive attitude might be that with sufficient practice the disagreements on various doctrinal matters that one sees playing out in forums such as these will fade into irrelevancy.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Sam Vara »

mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:13 am
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 am Generosity & sila leads to concentration which leads to insight. I think it's a devaluation of the Buddha's words by insisting his teachings aren't complete.
I have faith that the Buddha's teachings are complete. Whether what is preserved in the suttas is complete and/or understandable without examining history, context, and so on it a different question.

:heart:
Mike
What are the grounds for that faith in the Buddha's teachings being complete, if what is preserved in the suttas may not be complete or understandable without other sources? Are you saying that there are some other vital non-sutta aspects of a broader Buddhist tradition which support your faith? Or that your faith does not require evidential support, but is more of a "leap of faith", so to speak?

This is a genuine question based on my interest in your stance, rather than a criticism of it. :anjali: :heart:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Coëmgenu »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:06 amWhat are the grounds for that faith in the Buddha's teachings being complete, if what is preserved in the suttas may not be complete or understandable without other sources?
Probably because the suttas were reconstructed after the Buddha's Parinibbāna by his disciples from what they could remember of their former teacher teaching while he was with them. The Buddha did not teach "suttas" while he was alive, but instead gave public sermons and personal instruction. Supposedly, the council happened a few months after the Buddha's Parinibbāna. Supposedly, they were remembered by 500 Arahants with flawless memory, but mostly by Venerables Ānanda and Upāli because I suppose their flawless memory was just all the more flawless than the other Arahants' flawless memories. If we believe all of this, then yes, the suttas might be an encyclopedic account of everything the Buddha said.

Even if they were an account of everything the Buddha said, that does not mean that the Buddha's words in and of themselves have liberating qualities (this is actually AFAIK a doctrine of some Mahāsāṃghikas, not the Theravāda). The students we see becoming enlightened after a single sermon are spiritual athletes, not the common man, IMO, and I don't actually see a reason to presume that they were "common men" instead of spiritual athletes. That being said, presuming that they weren't common man is another assumption, but one with precedent. The spiritual athletes have the necessary prerequisites that the common man lacks. It is possible, in theory based on precedent, that someone with a great deal of past cultivation could be exposed to the Buddhadhamma once and penetrate through, but it needn't be the words alone and the words themselves that do the trick -- there is also the past cultivation.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Sam Vara »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:17 am
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:06 amWhat are the grounds for that faith in the Buddha's teachings being complete, if what is preserved in the suttas may not be complete or understandable without other sources?
Probably because the suttas were reconstructed after the Buddha's Parinibbāna by his disciples from what they could remember of their former teacher teaching while he was with them. The Buddha did not teach "suttas" while he was alive, but instead have public sermons and personal instruction. Supposedly, the council happened a few months after the Buddha's Parinibbāna. Supposedly, they were remembered by 500 Arahants with flawless memory, but mostly by Venerables Ānanda and Upāli because I suppose their flawless memory was just all the more flawless than the other Arahants' flawless memories. If we believe all of this, then yes, the suttas might be an encyclopedic account of everything the Buddha said.
Yes, the problem I see is one of knowledge. If one believes that the memories of those compiling the suttas was less than flawless, then one's faith in what the Buddha taught is to that extent compromised by not knowing whether he taught it or not. How could one know whether the Buddha's teachings were complete unless one relied upon a third component such as direct realisation, other contemporaneous documents, etc.? One cannot know the completeness of something by relying on an account of that thing which one believes to be flawed.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by SarathW »

To me, Buddha's dhamma is not simple.
If that is the case you will find Arahants in every corner of the street.
See the post on Sri Lankan lay Arahant who still enjoy the worldly pleasures but observe the five precepts. (which indirectly means he enjoys sexual intercourse with his wife)
This person has a deep Sutta and Abhidhamma knowledge. I could not find any fault in them.
Perhaps he may be an Arahant but for me, it is not that simple.
Read the Kathavattu in Abhidhamma to see the confusion about the teaching. The Sutta is full of these sorts of discussions.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by BrokenBones »

SarathW wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:30 am To me, Buddha's dhamma is not simple.
If that is the case you will find Arahants in every corner of the street.
See the post on Sri Lankan lay Arahant who still enjoy the worldly pleasures but observe the five precepts. (which indirectly means he enjoys sexual intercourse with his wife)
This person has a deep Sutta and Abhidhamma knowledge. I could not find any fault in them.
Perhaps he may be an Arahant but for me, it is not that simple.
Read the Kathavattu in Abhidhamma to see the confusion about the teaching. The Sutta is full of these sorts of discussions.
I think you need to make the distinction between simple and easy.

An analogy... simple... like a monk leads a simple life... but I doubt I could do it.

Ps... what on earth do your Sri Lankan monks get up to?

It sounds like he needs to put down his Abhidhamma and contemplate a few suttas.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Bundokji »

The problem of determining what the dhamma is seems to have what all definitions have in common:

1- It would be a generalized statement lacking context
2- When contextualized, it conveys specific meaning of which the act of generalizing would be misleading and fallacious
3- It is often speculative, perceptual, one sided, suspect to be an outcome of attachment, leading to disagreements and quarrels
4- The above leads to quoting source as the safest option - technically suspending judgement and personal opinion
5- Quoting the source bring people to the same vicious circle as the source itself, as a historical text, is context sensitive.
"In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind & eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'"

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

With regard to these things
they're attached —
some contemplatives & brahmans.
They quarrel & fight —
people seeing one side.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by mikenz66 »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:06 am
mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:13 am
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 am Generosity & sila leads to concentration which leads to insight. I think it's a devaluation of the Buddha's words by insisting his teachings aren't complete.
I have faith that the Buddha's teachings are complete. Whether what is preserved in the suttas is complete and/or understandable without examining history, context, and so on it a different question.

:heart:
Mike
What are the grounds for that faith in the Buddha's teachings being complete, if what is preserved in the suttas may not be complete or understandable without other sources? Are you saying that there are some other vital non-sutta aspects of a broader Buddhist tradition which support your faith? Or that your faith does not require evidential support, but is more of a "leap of faith", so to speak?

This is a genuine question based on my interest in your stance, rather than a criticism of it. :anjali: :heart:
Hi Sam Vara,

Thanks for the great questions, of which there are at least two.

1. Completeness of the suttas. Obviously we can never be certain whether the suttas preserve exactly what the Buddha taught. I tend to think that that provide a good enough approximation to be useful. Furthermore, there is the issue of translation. Therefore, other sources: commentaries, parallels, texts from other movements, etc, are very helpful in clarifying the meaning. Of course, one doesn't have to do all of that oneself. The various generations of translators have been considering these issues for a while, so "just reading the (translated) suttas" already has a lot from those other sources built in.

2. Mode of practice. In the suttas, vinaya, and commentaries, practice is presented as an activity that involves community and instruction, up to the point where the practitioner is truly ready for the final breakthrough (with several suttas covering the case of a practitioner not being ready to "go to the forest alone", with predictable results). Furthermore, it's a rare person who becomes an expert at anything without interaction and/or instruction. So I take those aspects to be an important part of the Path.

However, for me, in the final analysis faith/confidence is not a result of reasoning it out logically. It's a matter of role models, experience, and gut feeling.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Sam Vara »

mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:11 pm ....
Many thanks. :anjali:
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The Dhamma is simple (if we want it to be)

Post by Dhammanando »

DooDoot wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:20 am The above appears found in 9 suttas.
The number is about double that, but since the "graduated exposition" formula is often truncated in the Pali, it's the initial words one needs to search for, not the concluding ones. One should also bear in mind the variant spellings: anupubbiṁ kathaṁ, ānupubbikathaṁ,
anupubbīkathaṁ, etc.

Having said that, even if there was only one sutta containing the formula, the fact that it was a normative way of expounding the Dhamma can be see from the Udayisutta, AN 5.159.
“It is not easy, Ānanda, to explain the doctrine to others. As you teach others, you should keep five things in mind. Which five?

'I shall give a step-by-step explanation' (anupubbiṁ kathaṁ kathessāmī’ti), thinking like this, one should explain the doctrine to others.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Post Reply