There is, however, more to rebirth in the context of the Buddha's teachings than just that.zerotime wrote: . . . Rebirth is a phenomena used by Buddha to support the arise of disenchantment:
"enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.""
How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
>> 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?
I wonder... denial that rebirth occurs, or denial that the Buddha taught rebirth, or denial that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth are relevant to the Path... is that disenchantment or is it something else?zerotime wrote:only when they causes disenchantment. SN.15 teaches disenchantment of samsara.Repeated reflections on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra are a means to gain release.
The simple recollection of the past is not a tool to be released. Our present life demonstrate this to anyone.
Rebirth is a phenomena used by Buddha to support the arise of disenchantment:
"enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.""
best
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hi Peter,
Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples, a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.
Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.
Kind regards
Ben
My opinion...I reckon it is something else.Peter wrote:I wonder... denial that rebirth occurs, or denial that the Buddha taught rebirth, or denial that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth are relevant to the Path... is that disenchantment or is it something else?
Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples, a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.
Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.
Kind regards
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?
Howdy Piotrpiotr wrote:Actually, there is whole saṃyutta (SN 15) which is dedicated to this topic and treats the issue from the practical point of view. Repeated reflections on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra are a means to gain release.
I find the practical point of view from these suttas is how the Buddha described samsara, which means 'to circle':
Best wishes"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Gaddula Sutta
George
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hey Ben
Realize your post was your own opinion but hope you dont mind if i post back in relation to it
Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc
I think what we have today are just two different kinds of taking Dhamma, one wanting to take the traditional and commentarial "version" (dont like this word but couldnt think of another) and others choosing to take more of what modern monks have to say
I dont really think that one is better than another, i think this comes down to what suites the individual for practice
I myself started with the traditional teachings, three lives D.O. rebirth post mortem and 31 plains etc etc but it never really "worked" for me in any meaningful way. Only when I began to read Ajahn Buddhadasa, A. Chah, A. Sumedho did the Dhamma really come alive and begin to make a difference for me on a meaningful level. To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does
So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks
metta
Realize your post was your own opinion but hope you dont mind if i post back in relation to it
,Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples
Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc
Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.
Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.
I think what we have today are just two different kinds of taking Dhamma, one wanting to take the traditional and commentarial "version" (dont like this word but couldnt think of another) and others choosing to take more of what modern monks have to say
I dont really think that one is better than another, i think this comes down to what suites the individual for practice
I myself started with the traditional teachings, three lives D.O. rebirth post mortem and 31 plains etc etc but it never really "worked" for me in any meaningful way. Only when I began to read Ajahn Buddhadasa, A. Chah, A. Sumedho did the Dhamma really come alive and begin to make a difference for me on a meaningful level. To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does
So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks
metta
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
no idea.... sometmes the internet is like being born in the animal realm i guess...Santikaro wrote:
Oh! Why would any Dhamma practitoner bother w/ such stuff? Even if a view is "right," entrenching in it is dukkha. Btw, entrenching could be a viable translation for abhinivesaya, which I tend to translate as "clinging" but which Tan Ajahn first explained to me as "burying ones mind in."
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
I also dont think one is "less Theravada" than another another (or less Buddhist) which is something i hear chucked around from time to time
“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.”
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.clw_uk wrote:,Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples
Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc
Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.
And this is the only thing here that you have said that carries any weight.Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.
Why is it that some Buddhadasa’s followers are so strongly intent on rejecting the more traditional point of view as if it were simply and completely wrong? Did Buddhadasa feel that his position is the only - truly true - way of understanding the teachings of the Buddha? Vens Nyanaponika or Mahasi Saydaw, for example, were simply wrong? It is one thing to state that Buddhadasa believes this or that for that or this reason, but it is another to keep on harping on these reasons, poo-pooing the traditional point of view as if Buddhadasa had the truly true truth and no one else does. A lot of that has gone on on this forum and on other forums as well. What is the point of it?
To you. I spent time with Ven Sumedho in the mid 70’s. Not a lot time, but enough. Deep abiding respect for him I have, but I’ll take U Pandita or Joseph Goldstein any day. But these are personal biases, not reasoned arguments for trying to emphasise anything.To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does
So, what does that really mean?So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks
Sure. Buddhaghosa is a Brahmin who Hinduized Buddhism with his interpretations, according to one Buddhadasa follower, and those who follow Buddhaghosa's understanding are following a severly corrupted form of Buddhism.I also dont think one is "less Theravada" than another another (or less Buddhist) which is something i hear chucked around from time to time
>> 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?
Hi,
Thank you for your thoughts. According to Upanisa-sutta (SN 12.23) knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present (i.e. that they are inconstant, stresfull & not-self) is a prerequisite for disenchantment, disenchantment is a prerequisite for dispassion, and dispassion is a prerequisite for release. So it seems to me that both contemplation on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra (i.e. vastness of suffering & stress) and contemplation on not-self are a means to gain release. It might be matter of personal preferences which one will emphasize.Santikaro wrote:I agree that there is practical value in such reflections but don't read the possibility of vimutti (release) in them. I see these reflections as a way to get interested in release. For those who see life in such terms, rather than focusing always on the short-term, the next pay-off, e.g., getting a better next birth (common in popular Buddhism), use the belief to reflect on the ultimate futility of it all. If aiming for a better rebirth is not the wisest response to dukkha, then what is? If the inquiry continues and leads to deeper contemplation and realization -- e.g., all phenomena are not-self -- then the possibility of release appears.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hey
Not everyone does understand Dhamma, this we know. The rest i wrote as a maybe, hence why i said can
Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?
Craig - Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc
Tilt - So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.
Not everyone does understand Dhamma, this we know. The rest i wrote as a maybe, hence why i said can
Craig - Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?
Tilt - Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.
Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?
Perhaps because it is completely wrong for them in reguards to practice . Perhaps they know it is wrong? I dont knowWhy is it that some Buddhadasa’s followers are so strongly intent on rejecting the more traditional point of view as if it were simply and completely wrong?
I dont knowDid Buddhadasa feel that his position is the only - truly true - way of understanding the teachings of the Buddha?
I cant speak for others but for myself ive just engaged in debate and exchanged points of view, only on occasion have to offered criticism of the commentaries (on some teachings). Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic? Why do those who follow his line of teaching always get branded as "materialist" or "annihilationist" or get told that they are adverting away from rebirth (so in effect its being said that there is something wrong with them)?It is one thing to state that Buddhadasa believes this or that for that or this reason, but it is another to keep on harping on these reasons, poo-pooing the traditional point of view as if Buddhadasa had the truly true truth and no one else does. A lot of that has gone on on this forum and on other forums as well.
I agree (with the last sentence)Craig- To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does
Tilt - To you. I spent time with Ven Sumedho in the mid 70’s. Not a lot time, but enough. Deep abiding respect for him I have, but I’ll take U Pandita or Joseph Goldstein any day. But these are personal biases, not reasoned arguments for trying to emphasise anything.
Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etcSo i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks
So, what does that really mean?
“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.”
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hi,
This is really great discourse, but in my opinion this passage doesn't only describe saṃsāra. Rather, it describes also what makes saṃsāra keep going, i.e. ignorance and craving (see first sentences of this discourse), which is manifested by assumption that form, ..., & consciousness are the self or somehow related to it.George Bernard wrote:I find the practical point of view from these suttas is how the Buddha described samsara, which means 'to circle':"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Hi George
Welcome to Dhamma Wheel!
Firstly, I want to say that i was genuine in asking santikaro about the Ajahn's approach to practice. Regardless of the differing interpretations on rebirth, I really think that the Ajahn's focus on practice is something we can all draw from, be inspired by, and find some common ground. And the quote you provided from A Handbook to Mankind demonstrated that. Thank you.
I also thank you for providing your second quote which seems to be the basis of Venerable's position regarding metaphorical rebirth. I am aware that the Buddha used language in creative and unique ways to impress a point to his interlocutors. Gombrich wrote about this in several of his essays in How Buddhism Began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings. Its an interesting and challenging read, and one that, while I don't agree with all of his points, found it a useful and stimulating read.
However, one thing that seems to be missing in these discussions with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the Buddha's language of rebirth is the scriptural 'smoking gun'.
And to be honest with you George, I actually think whether one person believes rebirth is literal (as I do) or whether someone doesn't - is irrelevant. Practice is the engine that generates wisdom.
What I do care about, which Tilt has mentioned, is evangelist-like behaviour that has occured on this and other boards, declaring Venerable's teaching of metaphorical rebirth as the one and only way to interpret the Dhamma.
Kind regards
Ben
Welcome to Dhamma Wheel!
Firstly, I want to say that i was genuine in asking santikaro about the Ajahn's approach to practice. Regardless of the differing interpretations on rebirth, I really think that the Ajahn's focus on practice is something we can all draw from, be inspired by, and find some common ground. And the quote you provided from A Handbook to Mankind demonstrated that. Thank you.
I also thank you for providing your second quote which seems to be the basis of Venerable's position regarding metaphorical rebirth. I am aware that the Buddha used language in creative and unique ways to impress a point to his interlocutors. Gombrich wrote about this in several of his essays in How Buddhism Began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings. Its an interesting and challenging read, and one that, while I don't agree with all of his points, found it a useful and stimulating read.
However, one thing that seems to be missing in these discussions with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the Buddha's language of rebirth is the scriptural 'smoking gun'.
And to be honest with you George, I actually think whether one person believes rebirth is literal (as I do) or whether someone doesn't - is irrelevant. Practice is the engine that generates wisdom.
What I do care about, which Tilt has mentioned, is evangelist-like behaviour that has occured on this and other boards, declaring Venerable's teaching of metaphorical rebirth as the one and only way to interpret the Dhamma.
Kind regards
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?
Hi Craig
Thanks for your response. I won't address all your points as I concur with Tilt with the majority of his points. I also point to my just previous response to George with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the language of rebirth. Just to highlight my above point, considering the term 'rebirth' appears hundreds of thousands of times in the Tipitaka, I have not seen anywhere, a scriptural reference that supports, definitively and conclusively, the Ajahn's argument. As you know, this is something i asked of you on 'the great rebirth debate' some months ago before you went off on retreat.
And I just want to reiterate what I said above. Craig, I don’t care that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu taught rebirth, or whether you or anyone else believes in rebirth. As far as I am concerned, the thing that matters is practice. It is the engine that drives wisdom.
What I do care about is evangelism and the attitude that Venerable’s interpretation is the only way to interpret the Dhamma.
And i hope Craig that you will continue to be inspired by what I believe was an epiphany on your recent retreat. Concentrate on what really matters Craig, practice!
Metta
Ben
Thanks for your response. I won't address all your points as I concur with Tilt with the majority of his points. I also point to my just previous response to George with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the language of rebirth. Just to highlight my above point, considering the term 'rebirth' appears hundreds of thousands of times in the Tipitaka, I have not seen anywhere, a scriptural reference that supports, definitively and conclusively, the Ajahn's argument. As you know, this is something i asked of you on 'the great rebirth debate' some months ago before you went off on retreat.
Craig, its not traditon for tradition's sake. I think its a reasonable assumption to make that the commentarians knew what they were talking about, knew - not only intellectually, but had either developed naana to a advanced state or were enlightened and so were able to verify the Dhamma through their own bhavana-maya-punna. I also believe that when they compiled their commentries, they did so for the welfare of all sentient beings. And the same goes for the 2,500 year tradition of scholarship within the Theravada. And I think, again a personal opinion, that due to the rigours of scholasticism, that the argument of metaphorical rebirth would have survived within the literature if it really was a special way of interpreting the Dhamma. Yet instead, and maybe its just here and on other forums, we have unsubstantiated slurs against Buddhagosa and others inserting Brahmanism, and slurs against later writers such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi who, according to some, rely too heavily on the Brahmanical influence o Buddhagosa. And my opinion is that its not an argument. Its actually an ad hominem.Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.
And I just want to reiterate what I said above. Craig, I don’t care that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu taught rebirth, or whether you or anyone else believes in rebirth. As far as I am concerned, the thing that matters is practice. It is the engine that drives wisdom.
What I do care about is evangelism and the attitude that Venerable’s interpretation is the only way to interpret the Dhamma.
And i hope Craig that you will continue to be inspired by what I believe was an epiphany on your recent retreat. Concentrate on what really matters Craig, practice!
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]..
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
The comment is still meaningless.clw_uk wrote:Hey
Craig - Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc
Tilt - So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.
Not everyone does understand Dhamma, this we know. The rest i wrote as a maybe, hence why i said can
But the assumption still does not tell us anything meaningful. There is no argument in it, no evidence in, no anything it it except wishful thinking.Craig - Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?
Tilt - Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.
Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?
I have not used the word heretic, but idiosyncratic is an appropriate description of Ven Buddhadasa; by the virtue of his own statements he has put himself outside of the Theravada mainstream. Buddhadasa, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push his notions and insist that his point of view is the point of view.Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic?
Because, more than anything, they do a very bad of presenting his point of view, it would seem.Why do those who follow his line of teaching always get branded as "materialist" or "annihilationist" or get told that they are adverting away from rebirth (so in effect its being said that there is something wrong with them)?
In other words, Buddhadasa is not the only way to understand the Buddha’s teaching. I have no problem with that.So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks
Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etcSo, what does that really mean?
>> 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?
Craig- Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?
Tilt - But the assumption still does not tell us anything meaningful. There is no argument in it, no evidence in, no anything it it except wishful thinking.
Well we can only go on what we think in this reguard since we cant go back and ask them all, do you honeslty think that in 2,500 years no monks and nuns took a different view of things?
Craig - Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic?
Tilti - I have not used the word heretic, but idiosyncratic is an appropriate description of Ven Buddhadasa; by the virtue of his own statements he has put himself outside of the Theravada mainstream. Buddhadasa, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push his notions and insist that his point of view is the point of view.
Did i say you used the word "Heretic"? You can see it as idiosyncratic if you wish but hes not alone in this thinking.
Traditionalists, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push buddhaghosa's notions and insist that their point of view is the point of view (and yes this has happned)
I see the argumentative streak coming through because of the black and white view those who follow tradition have. The general notion of "this is older so it must be true" and the dogmatic view of what makes right view (this is also put forward by some monks)
Of course i cant make the claim that he is, how do I know? All i know is what works and makes sense in accord with my understandingCraig - Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etc
Tilt - In other words, Buddhadasa is not the only way to understand the Buddha’s teaching. I have no problem with that.
“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.”