I'm not referring to the diet of humans or animals. I was referring to your suggesting that some things are good based on the culture, time-period, social things; whereas the Dhamma has absolute, universal morals, like not killing, the 4NT.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:36 pmSounds like mealtime.
The gazelle is great meal for the tiger, not so great for the gazelle. Nothing right or left about nature.
Nature is middle ground or non political.
Ambition vs. the dhamma
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17187
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
Good question.
Arahants do not have the good or bad ambitions.
They only have the wish to do (kiriya Citta)
However their action is always wholsome.
It appears Arahants naturally practice Brahama Viharas.
So what it is boil down to is that good and bad is determine based on your mental state.
Lower or bad mental states lead you to hell irrespective of your ambition.
It is just the natural law.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
The Buddha did not teach not killing as an absolute, and you seem to ritualize this by continuously repeating this as if it is an absolute.DNS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:59 pmI'm not referring to the diet of humans or animals. I was referring to your suggesting that some things are good based on the culture, time-period, social things; whereas the Dhamma has absolute, universal morals, like not killing, the 4NT.
The dhamma is the guide within to connect with source(Nibanna). Morality is a relation of mental volition, with an absolute being full access to source consciousness.
If Buddha forbid killing he would have said this with absolute clarity. But he didn’t, he used terms to describe types of unwholesome killing.
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
This seems to be the case. It’s the mentality one carries in relation to ones actions that is important.SarathW wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:11 amGood question.
Arahants do not have the good or bad ambitions.
They only have the wish to do (kiriya Citta)
However their action is always wholsome.
It appears Arahants naturally practice Brahama Viharas.
So what it is boil down to is that good and bad is determine based on your mental state.
Lower or bad mental states lead you to hell irrespective of your ambition.
It is just the natural law.
For example the arahant is offered rice with animal flesh in his alms bowl. The arahant eats to sustain the body, and has gratitude for the all which provides. The vegan might find it difficult to even be in the same room with people eating animal flesh. Where others are enjoying a meal and the. IMO any of others they are in hell.
Worldly ambition only seems to be an issue if one cannot balance this with the ambition to practice.
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
According to my understanding , Buddha said when one perform some action which attach with intention that is full of greed , illwill and are in a state of ignorance , that kind of actions could becomes mostly unwholesome . Conversely , the actions perform could be of something wholesome .thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:25 pmHow do we know what is wholesome vs unwholesome?
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
If we are ignorant, then are we ritualising ambitions?asahi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:40 amAccording to my understanding , Buddha said when one perform some action which attach with intention that is full of greed , illwill and are in a state of ignorance , that kind of actions could becomes mostly unwholesome . Conversely , the actions perform could be of something wholesome .
The sotapanna has connected to source and as a fruit they no longer need rituals. Rituals are a practice for those who are disconnected from source to feel connected externally to one another.
So Buddha knows as Buddha is source, but knowledge of the connection cannot connect us with Buddha. Only direct experience(connection) is the way.
So is ambition to be a monk wholesome?
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
No , a sotapanna as i understand still follows rules and precepts . Unbeneficial rituals that Buddha taught was about practices that doesnt leads to liberation .thepea wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:08 pm If we are ignorant, then are we ritualising ambitions? The sotapanna has connected to source and as a fruit they no longer need rituals. Rituals are a practice for those who are disconnected from source to feel connected externally to one another. So Buddha knows as Buddha is source, but knowledge of the connection cannot connect us with Buddha. Only direct experience(connection) is the way.
So is ambition to be a monk wholesome?
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
What rules must a sotapanna follow?asahi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:43 pmNo , a sotapanna as i understand still follows rules and precepts . Unbeneficial rituals that Buddha taught was about practices that doesnt leads to liberation .thepea wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:08 pm If we are ignorant, then are we ritualising ambitions? The sotapanna has connected to source and as a fruit they no longer need rituals. Rituals are a practice for those who are disconnected from source to feel connected externally to one another. So Buddha knows as Buddha is source, but knowledge of the connection cannot connect us with Buddha. Only direct experience(connection) is the way.
So is ambition to be a monk wholesome?
What rituals did Buddha teach?
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
Yes I get it.
We do things that are beneficial to us, we choose to brush out teeth, because we see when we don’t there are unpleasant effects.
Similarly we drill for oil so that we have energy to heat our homes otherwise we suffer the pain of freezing.
Similarly we fish and eat the fish, otherwise we suffer hunger pangs in our bellies.
There can be a good ambition for everything we do, where is the line between good and bad?
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17187
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
It is bad if it inflicts harm on another living being. It is bad if it involves killing another living being. This is permeated throughout the Suttas.
- purple planet
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:07 am
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:34 pmReading that, I do not see where it says killing fish to eat them is unwholesome?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:21 pmThe Buddha left us some handy lists, such as the one in MN 41:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
It says loosely translated
One killing living beings:(with semi colon) then goes on to give the types of killing which is unwholesome.
It’s not implying that killing itself is unwholesome but rather a particular type of killing.
Then is does the same for
Taking that which is not given:(semi colon) then describes in more detail the types of taking which are unwholesome.
If I go to the forest and take a tree, it was not given... is this unwholesome?
It says in the link :
12. "And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct? Here someone, abandoning the killing of living beings, becomes one who abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid aside, gentle and kindly, he abides compassionate to all living beings.
It is than very clear that in accordance with the dhamma and righteous conduct is not killing living beings ............... and fish=living beings so killing fish is not in accordance with the dhamma
Last edited by purple planet on Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
you can act normal, then have karmic consequence
such is the way it is…
people have karmic consequences
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
Re: Ambition vs. the dhamma
What is the consequence?cappuccino wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:17 pmyou can act normal, then have karmic consequence
such is the way it is…
people have karmic consequences
Some future misery to fear?
Are we not to live in the here and now?
This sounds like the Christian ideology of fearing the wrath of god.