Will wrote:Whether 'wrong View Dhamma' or 'counterfeit Dhamma' or Dhamma lite - it is all rooted in Wrong View. And as fundamentalist as it may appear, there is only 'one valid interpretation' - that of Buddha.
See this old thread on Wrong View: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16691
He also said in A 1 (sutta 318) that 'There is nothing worse than wrong view'.
The Dhamma is not ended yet. It is degrading until no one knows the true Dhamma.Arjan Dirkse wrote:If getting rid of superstitious trappings you don't believe in, while embracing a Buddhist practice you feel is helpful and beneficial to yourself and others, is a sign of the dhamma ending age, then please let the dhamma end today.
We get terribly hung up on definitions and doctrinal delineations on forums such as these. But Buddhism is spreading, is thriving, and it's definitely a force for good. If the interest of its followers is more about achieving happiness and doing good things, like safeguarding the environment, or helping people in difficult circumstances, fighting inequality or exploitation etc, than in "keeping the faith pure", then that is only a good thing.
I think that's the point that Will is making. If some interpretations are more or less effective/valid/wrong/skilful than others then it is actutally important to identify which is which.clw_uk wrote:Will wrote:Whether 'wrong View Dhamma' or 'counterfeit Dhamma' or Dhamma lite - it is all rooted in Wrong View. And as fundamentalist as it may appear, there is only 'one valid interpretation' - that of Buddha.
See this old thread on Wrong View: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16691
He also said in A 1 (sutta 318) that 'There is nothing worse than wrong view'.
Isnt it better translated as "skilful view"
That is, which is more skiful at leading to letting go?
SN 20.7 Ani Sutta: The Peg
Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.
"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
True...but some tact is called for. When everybody just starts quoting scripture to prove that everyone else is wrong, you can't really have a fruitful discussion anymore.mikenz66 wrote:I think that's the point that Will is making. If some interpretations are more or less effective/valid/wrong/skilful than others then it is actutally important to identify which is which.clw_uk wrote:Will wrote:Whether 'wrong View Dhamma' or 'counterfeit Dhamma' or Dhamma lite - it is all rooted in Wrong View. And as fundamentalist as it may appear, there is only 'one valid interpretation' - that of Buddha.
See this old thread on Wrong View: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16691
He also said in A 1 (sutta 318) that 'There is nothing worse than wrong view'.
Isnt it better translated as "skilful view"
That is, which is more skiful at leading to letting go?
I don't think anyone here woud disagree that if someone was under the misapperehension that it is possible to effectively practice while killing, stealing, etc, etc, we'd be doing them a favour by telling them (politely) that they were deluded. We wouldn't be saying: "Oh, you need to be kind to him, and let him think whatever he wants to...".
We have less consensus on whether some modern developments ("Dhamma Lite" if you like) are actually ineffective but it's obviously a question worth exploring.
Mike
Arjan Dirkse wrote:
Pointing out wrong view is great in a teacher - student relation, or for an individual to apply to him or herself. When people of different convictions start using it to discredit alternative viewpoints, that is just unhelpful and unpleasant.
As to the whole "dhamma lite" thing - I have no doubt it is just the same as has always been the case. Right after the Buddha died, different groups started popping up all over the place. Sthaviravadins, Mahasamghika, Dharmaguptakas, Sarvastivadins, Sautantrika, and then of course all the widely different Mahayana schools. I bet the "wrong view" accusation has been used a lot of times in heated debates even back then, and the "dhamma ending age" argument likewise..."Your beliefs are different than mine, therefore the dhamma ending age is here!"
I certainly agree with that. However, as I said, not every point of view is necessarily useful. It does seem to me that some of the modern secular/Dhamma Lite/etc approaches risk losing important aspects of Dhamma. Putting some aspects aside "for now" is quite different from arguing that they have no significance. And that is what one sometimes sees: wholesale dismissal of some aspects of the Dhamma with pejoratives such as "cultural baggage".Arjan Dirkse wrote: True...but some tact is called for. When everybody just starts quoting scripture to prove that everyone else is wrong, you can't really have a fruitful discussion anymore.
Pointing out wrong view is great in a teacher - student relation, or for an individual to apply to him or herself. When people of different convictions start using it to discredit alternative viewpoints, that is just unhelpful and unpleasant.
Of course they are effective. The only question is toward what goal.mikenz66 wrote:We have less consensus on whether some modern developments ("Dhamma Lite" if you like) are actually ineffective but it's obviously a question worth exploring.
