DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

[DooDoot]

But what @DooDot wrote simply cannot be left to stand, as it promotes ignorance and discompassion.

The above is not a "fact". It is merely your personal opinion. I recall you chastised (criticised) a person on another chatsite. The person you chastised said he brought a lady through a long phase of suicidal feelings & thinking but you said that person was wrong. You faulted the person because the person was not a money-leaching professional psychologist.

In summary, in my view, little you say is related to Buddhism. Allow me to summarize how I view your views:

1. You believe in "liberalism" and "freedom of self-expression". Obviously, this is not Buddhist. DN 31 says a "libertine" is a dangerous friend. Buddhism teaches a define path of living, be it 5 , 8 or 10 precepts or Vinaya.

2. You believe laypeople should do meditation retreats & remain in a state lost in their hindrances, even though DN 31 says the duty of monks is to teach people morality. While I used to be involved in mass-market meditation retreats, I would probably never do it again because DN 31 does not say laypeople should practise meditation. DN 31 says laypeople should be taught morality.

3. You seem to support the "client-centred" (rather than 'Dhamma-centered") industries of mass-market meditation retreats & professional psychologists, which do not generally teach morality and which use the model of the client looking for their own solutions, which maximizes the business revenue of those businesses (because the clients keep returning due to never resolving their issues). Since I have been trained as a secular counsellor, I understand the client-centred model, which I do not agree with because it is unrelated to Buddhism. Buddhism teaches people to follow the Buddhist path rather than find their own path.

4. You seem to believe a mother should readily accept the homosexuality of her daughter than than the daughter accept the resistance of her mother. You appear to view homosexuality as the norm (as though millions of years of evolution has occurred due to homosexuality) and family values as something abnormal (similar to how Feminists believing women wanting & having children is abnormal; even though the suttas say in many places women generally delight in having children).

5. You seem to believe making promiscuous homosexuals (engaged in narcissistic actions) feel better is more important than the promotion of family values (which are 'dhamma' that sustain the world).

6. You seem to believe the Buddha's silence on homosexuality & harems of the nobles was the Buddha's approval of these things (rather than the Buddha's avoidance of these things that completely fall outside of his teachings).

7. You seem to believe the Buddha taught all of society rather than merely those who approached him for teachings.

Personally, I read little in your views that can be supported by the texts.

[samsarictravelling]

...

American ... ideology

To note: I am not American, this alone makes it difficult to understand what you are going on about so often.

Anyway, I have brought up the point here several times, there are some posters on here who frequently use terms loaned from social sciences, but in a fashion that is far off their actual definition. As they never explain how their private usage is actually meant in detail, their whole argument becomes largely undecipherable.

Definition libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." I see no issue with this concept, but you seem to have a problem with citizens living their lives unmolested by political intervention?
Definition feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Again, from a purely compassionate standpoint, which I am sure every Buddhist will inherently have, it would be impossible to deviate from this idea; every Buddhist must therefore be a feminist, or he is already fettered to an attachment of overly ego-based views centered around one's gender.
Definition patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." This is a phenomenon wholly pertaining to the world of laypeople; if other laypeople are somehow against this hierarchical stratification based on gender, this does not sound overly concerning to me. As a Buddhist I would largely advise to let those laypeople work it out between themselves and if to "choose sides", to do it on the basis of being emotionally disengaged and guided by the concept of compassion.

...

When DooDoot wrote:

Why? It might sound very weird compared to American left-wing libertarian ideology. DN 31 appears to say a "libertine" is a dangerous friend.

And then you, AgarikaJ, responded about 'libertarianism' by giving the definition of 'libertarianism, as quoted above, you and DooDoot may both have mixed up the words 'libertarianism' with the word 'libertine'.

Here is the definition of 'libertine', which is what the DN31 is talking about, in my opinion (I could be wrong) -- in my opinion, it was not talking about 'libertarianism':

libertine: a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.

samsarictravelling

Edit: From my quote of DooDoot below, it seems DooDoot really thinks 'libertine' has a direct connection with the word 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism', which -- in my opinion -- is totally incorrect. 'Libertine' means 'a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake', not 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism', if I am correct; am I correct or incorrect?:

But what @DooDot wrote simply cannot be left to stand, as it promotes ignorance and discompassion.

...

In summary, in my view, little you say is related to Buddhism. Allow me to summarize how I view your views:

1. You believe in "liberalism" and "freedom of self-expression". Obviously, this is not Buddhist. DN 31 says a "libertine" is a dangerous friend. Buddhism teaches a define path of living, be it 5 , 8 or 10 precepts or Vinaya.

...

But 'liberalism' does have an obsolete meaning, as shown eventually through a visit at this webpage at first: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism :

liberalism noun
...
Definition of liberalism
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
...

By clicking the word liberal, it directs to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal#h1 :

liberal adjective
...
Definition of liberal (Entry 1 of 2)
...
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the context of the DN31:

(e) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and companion.

gambler=gambler
libertine=a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
drunkard=drunkard
swindler=a person who uses deception to deprive someone of money or possessions
cheat=a person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.
rowdy=a noisy and disorderly person.

These types of people are the kind you find partying at night, and/or poor and without wisdom. I don't see how in this context you can have a 'liberal' person chastised by the Buddha. What do I mean by a 'liberal' person? A liberal person is 'an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights'. And what is 'liberalism'?:

'a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties'.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism

Would the Buddha chastise such a person that is of the 'liberalism' kind? I hope not for my argument's sake.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One reason both AgarikaJ and DooDoot have mixed up the words 'libertine' and 'libertarianism' is that both may have been born in non-Western countries and never became proficient enough in English to know terms like 'libertine'.

All my thoughts above. I may or may not be wrong.

samsarictravelling

[DooDoot]

One reason both AgarikaJ and DooDoot have mixed up the words 'libertine' and 'libertarianism' is that both may have been born in non-Western countries and never became proficient enough in English to know terms like 'libertine'. All my thoughts above. I may or may not be wrong. samsarictravelling

Yes, your thoughts were wrong. I was born in a Western country. Also, based on the definitions below, I didn't mix up anything. My impression is the word 'liberal' can have different meanings & uses amongst different Western nations. For example, in Australia, we rarely use the word (apart from referring to a certain political party); however, in the USA, it appears the word is used greatly. Therefore, if my language lack proficiency, it is lacking in "American" language rather than the English language.

liberal adjective
...
Definition of liberal (Entry 1 of 2)
...
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

libertine: a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.

Thus, apart from quibbling about the meanings of vague words, do you have something to contribute to the topic of DN 31? Thanks

[samsarictravelling]

One reason both AgarikaJ and DooDoot have mixed up the words 'libertine' and 'libertarianism' is that both may have been born in non-Western countries and never became proficient enough in English to know terms like 'libertine'. All my thoughts above. I may or may not be wrong. samsarictravelling

Yes, your thoughts were wrong. I was born in a Western country. Also, based on the definitions below, I didn't mix up anything. My impression is the word 'liberal' can have different meanings & uses amongst different Western nations. For example, in Australia, we rarely use the word (apart from referring to a certain political party); however, in the USA, it appears the word is used greatly. Therefore, if my language lack proficiency, it is lacking in "American" language rather than the English language.

liberal adjective
...
Definition of liberal (Entry 1 of 2)
...
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

libertine: a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.

Thus, apart from quibbling about the meanings of vague words, do you have something to contribute to the topic of DN 31? Thanks

DooDoot,

I read your reply. I added my DN31 review of where it mentions 'libertine' with the five other types of evil companions, after you had already replied to my post.

samsarictravelling

[Pulsar]

You solved a riddle for me, I had puzzled why Yasodahara took so long to have a baby.
A deal her husband stuck with his parents, that is brilliant, now the pieces fall into place.
thanks DooDoot

[DooDoot]

You solved a riddle for me, I had puzzled why Yasodahara took so long to have a baby.
A deal her husband stuck with his parents, that is brilliant, now the pieces fall into place.
thanks DooDoot

Thanks Pulsar however my idea remains 100% speculation. However, to add to that speculation, when the Buddha ordained Rahula, the King was again heartbroken and requested of the Buddha to make a rule requiring parents consent for ordination. Again, we can speculate here how important it was for the King to have an heir to his worldly kingdom.

[AgarikaJ]

My impression is the word 'liberal' can have different meanings & uses amongst different Western nations. For example, in Australia, we rarely use the word (apart from referring to a certain political party); however, in the USA, it appears the word is used greatly. Therefore, if my language lack proficiency, it is lacking in "American" language rather than the English language.

But this was exactly my point.

You, and some others here, use often politically loaded words without attaching what you are actually meaning by them.

As many people understand them -- this is obvious -- very differently from you, your message can become garbled to the point of being unintelligible -- or, in the other extreme, be construed as being aggressive to the point of you seeming quite unhinged.

Take your pick who understands you in which way on here, but my assumption is that the message you are often trying to convey is largely lost. This of course makes any discourse with you very frustrating, because latest when you react to an answer, it becomes clear that you have been talking past everybody else and only a feeling of disconcert is left, the content of your answer often rejected fully based on nothing more than that.

Or have you not noticed that it seems to happen often that what should be a straightforward discussion ends in acrimony, disagreement and peacelessness? To date I assumed that you are simply a contrarian who looks constantly to pick a fight, but maybe your message is simply not understandable to your audience. Food for thought.

[Pulsar]

Dear Dodoot, your idea is 100% speculation? I am aware of this but, it is this kind of thought that sheds light, on my own un-ordinary thinking.
So I find it refreshing. Buddha's action, upon visiting his father,
of disinheriting the king of an heir, perhaps as the Awakened One,
he did not think in worldly terms any more.
His son approaches him, requests his inheritance,
What would a father do? Bring the son into the homelessness,
of the Arahant. Is that not heaven?
Rahula grows up under the guidance of
Sariputta, and other holy spirits that surround the Buddha
undoubtedly, I think 'what a spoilt childhood!'

Thanks again dear DoDoot, once again this is not the first time
your radical thoughts expressed, have helped me.
To think that there are those, of the likes of you, who rise to the
defense of Tathagata.
I have appreciated your compassionate ways, in the past, the time you spend organizing thought, and presenting it so cleverly, is commendable.
World is full of praise and blame, repeatedly Buddha has
said. One must not be influenced by either...

Be well and take care!

[DooDoot]

Such gracious words.

[Pulsar]

you too DoDoot. this small exchange made me search for biographical scraps of Rahula in the Middle Lengths... I found
MN 61 advice to Rahula at Ambalatthika ..
MN 62 the Grand Discourse of advice to Rahula...
MN 147 Cularahulovada sutta, reading these one could easily
say of Buddha "he took care of his only son" unto the ends of suffering, a heart warming story;
In my foray into Middle Lengths, I also found the
'the incontrovertible teaching'
to make the story short, it speaks of 4 kinds of persons in this world..
"four kinds of persons to be found in this
world, the first three kinds engage in harmful activity either to himself, or others;
of the all of these, the last one took my
breath away ...
'the person who does not torment himself or pursue
the practice of torturing himself, and does not
torment others, or pursue the practice of tormenting
others; since he neither torments himself
nor others, he is here and now
hungerless, extinguished, and cooled
and he abides
experiencing bliss
having himself become holy'
From MN 60