Quibble on Buddhadasa's teachings

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Quibble on Buddhadasa's teachings

Post by DooDoot »

Aloka wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:05 pm :goodpost:
Thank you Aloka but personally I find it worrisome when the Buddha is repeated quotedly & repeatedly ignored. :|

In summary, according to the Buddha or suttas:

1. The law of nature is eternal. (AN 3.136; SN 12.20).

2. A child in the womb and new born child have no kilesa. (MN 64)

3. Ajahn Buddhadasa taught the above two matters correctly.

:smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Quibble on Buddhadasa's teachings

Post by Aloka »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:10 pm
Aloka wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:05 pm :goodpost:
Thank you Aloka but personally I find it worrisome when the Buddha is repeated quoted & repeatedly ignored. :|
Indeed.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises."

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

:anjali:

.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Quibble on Buddhadasa's teachings

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Regarding MN 64
1. Buddha didn't even hint "no kilesa in infant" anywhere.

2. 'identicalization' (by some people) of five lower fetters (regarding infant) with all kilesas [to be able to claim categorically as "no kilesa"] shows (1) their level of understanding in Dhamma, OR (2) worse, deliberate equivocation to defend what cannot be defended, from the start.

3. The flaw (of Mālunkyāputta's answer) which was to be potentially pointed out, refuted, chided and confuted by the wanderers of other sects was clearly and beautifully pointed out by the Buddha using an infant simile. It is used by Buddha in order to be regarded as a potential point of being ridiculed by wanderers of other sects, if Mālunkyāputta continued to hold his explanation of lower fetters.

4. I.B. Horner's usage of second conditional in this sentence clearly conveyed about "lower fetters" in an infant. ..... (("For, Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘own body’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him the view of ‘own body’? A leaning to the view of ‘own body’ indeed lies latent in him."))

5. Equivocation by Repeated identicalization of "no lower fetters in infant ... [even if it were true]" with "no kilesa in infant" by some people to defend what cannot be defended clearly showed where one of the Achilles heels of this version DO lies. As long as such equivocation exists, it will always continue to be the point of easy target for confutation even by the "wanderers of other sects".

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
ps: If Buddha's suttas are to be quoted, it should be quoted intelligently, unbiasedly, undistortedly with right intention for the sake of Buddha's teachings; not for the sake of defending other versions, unsuccessfully.

Bhikkhu Sujato
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato
So i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants:
“Mendicants!”
“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“Mendicants, do you remember the five lower fetters that I taught?”
When he said this, Venerable Māluṅkyaputta said to him:
“Sir, I remember them.”
“But how do you remember them?”
“I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”
“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way? Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant? For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘teachings’, so how could doubt about the teachings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘precepts’, so how could misapprehension of precepts and observances possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to misapprehension of precepts and observances still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual desire still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sentient beings’, so how could ill will for sentient beings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will still lies within them. Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant?”
When he said this, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:
“Now is the time, Blessed One! Now is the time, Holy One! May the Buddha teach the five lower fetters. The mendicants will listen and remember it.”....
....
I.B. Horner
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/horner
Thus have i heard: at one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. While he was there, the Lord addressed the monks, saying: "Monks." "Revered One," these monks answered the Lord in assent. The Lord spoke thus:
"Do you, monks, remember that I taught you about the five fetters binding to the lower (shore)?" When this had been said, the venerable Māluṅkyāputta spoke thus to the Lord: "Yes, I, revered sir, remember that the Lord taught that there are five fetters binding to the lower (shore)." "But do you, Māluṅkyāputta, remember it as it was spoken by me, when I taught you about the five fetters binding to the lower (shore)?" "I, revered sir, remember that the Lord taught that false view of own body is a fetter binding to the lower (shore). I, revered sir, remember that perplexity is a fetter binding to the lower (shore). I, revered sir, remember that clinging to rites and customs is a fetter binding to the lower (shore). I, revered sir, remember that desire for sense-pleasures is a fetter binding to the lower (shore). I, revered sir, remember that malevolence is a fetter binding to the lower (shore). It is thus that I, revered sir, remember the five fetters binding to the lower (shore) as taught by the Lord."
"And about whom do you, Māluṅkyāputta, remember that I thus taught the five fetters binding to the lower (shore)? Would not wanderers belonging to other sects chide you with the simile of the baby? For, Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘own body’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him the view of ‘own body’? A leaning to the view of ‘own body’ indeed lies latent in him.
Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘things’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him perplexity about things! A leaning to perplexity indeed lies latent in him.
Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘habits’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him clinging to rites and customs? A leaning to clinging to rites and customs indeed lies latent in him.
Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘sense-pleasures’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him desire for sense-pleasures among the sense-pleasures? A leaning to attachment to sense-pleasures indeed lies latent in him.
Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘beings’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him malevolence towards beings? A leaning to malevolence indeed lies latent in him.
Now, Māluṅkyāputta, would not wanderers belonging to other sects chide you with this simile of the baby?" When this had been said, the venerable Ānanda spoke thus to the Lord: "Lord, this is the time, Well-farer, this is the time that the Lord might teach (us) about the five fetters binding to the lower (shore). When the monks have heard the Lord they will remember." ....
....
Bhikkhu Bodhi
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi
Thus have i heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, do you remember the five lower fetters as taught by me?”
When this was said, the venerable Mālunkyāputta replied: “Venerable sir, I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”
“But, Mālunkyāputta, in what way do you remember the five lower fetters as taught by me?”
“Venerable sir, I remember identity view as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember doubt as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember adherence to rules and observances as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember sensual desire as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember ill will as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. It is in this way, venerable sir, that I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”
“Mālunkyāputta, to whom do you remember my having taught these five lower fetters in that way? Would not the wanderers of other sects confute you with the simile of the infant? For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him. Would not the wanderers of other sects confute you with this simile of the infant?”
Thereupon, the venerable Ānanda said: “It is the time, Blessed One, it is the time, Sublime One, for the Blessed One to teach the five lower fetters. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the bhikkhus will remember it....
.....
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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Quibble on Buddhadasa's teachings

Post by DooDoot »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 am Regarding MN 64
1. Buddha didn't even hint "no kilesa in infant" anywhere.

Bhikkhu Sujato
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato
For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them?

A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them?

A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sentient beings’, so how could ill will for sentient beings possibly arise in them?
:roll: It appears the Buddha never said the above is invalid or untrue. It appears the Buddha said the wanderers would successfully confute with the simile of the infant; unless the dormant tendencies (anusaya) were used to refute the wanderers.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 am2. 'identicalization' (by some people) of five lower fetters (regarding infant) with all kilesas [to be able to claim categorically as "no kilesa"] shows (1) their level of understanding in Dhamma, OR (2) worse, deliberate equivocation to defend what cannot be defended, from the start.
It seems sensual desire, ill-will and self-view summarise all three basic defilements (kilesa) of greed, hatred & delusion. It seems clear MN 64 says the infant has no sensual desire, no ill-will & no self-delusion. Have you ever seem a new born infant say: "I want chocolate ice-cream" or "I hate Donald Trump?" ;)
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 am3. The flaw (of Mālunkyāputta's answer) which was to be potentially pointed out, refuted, chided and confuted by the wanderers of other sects was clearly and beautifully pointed out by the Buddha using an infant simile. It is used by Buddha in order to be regarded as a potential point of being ridiculed by wanderers of other sects, if Mālunkyāputta continued to hold his explanation of lower fetters.
It seems it was the wanderers and not the Buddha that used the infant simile. :roll: :? :lol:
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 am4. I.B. Horner's usage of second conditional in this sentence clearly conveyed about "lower fetters" in an infant. ..... (("For, Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘own body’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him the view of ‘own body’? A leaning to the view of ‘own body’ indeed lies latent in him."))
It seems Horner was obviously wrong, above. Her translation appears completely illogical because it omits the confutation of the wanderers. Also, it appears different to the translations of Sujato & Bodhi. :roll: :lol: :roll: Let us compare:
Horner wrote:Māluṅkyāputta, if there were not ‘sense-pleasures’ for an innocent baby boy lying on his back, whence could there arise for him desire for sense-pleasures among the sense-pleasures?

:rolleye:
Sujato wrote:A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them?

:thumbsup:
Bodhi wrote: A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could sensual desire arise in him?

:thumbsup:
:alien:
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:22 am5. Equivocation by Repeated identicalization of "no lower fetters in infant ... [even if it were true]" with "no kilesa in infant" by some people to defend what cannot be defended clearly showed where one of the Achilles heels of this version DO lies. As long as such equivocation exists, it will always continue to be the point of easy target for confutation even by the "wanderers of other sects".
It seems the above shows obsession with this matter due to the common "folk belief" in Eternalist D.O. The impression is you hold the Sri Lankan, Burmese & Tibetan belief that D.O. is about reincarnation over three lifetimes & infinite lifetimes; which appears to be Eternalism or permanent beginningless reincarnation.

MN 38 appears to clearly say D.O. only arises in the mind of the child only when the child's faculties have matured. Do I need to quote, again??? :roll: :|
MN 38 wrote:Then, as the child grows and his faculties mature, he plays at children's games: toy plows, stick games, somersaults, toy windmills, toy measures, toy carts, and a toy bow & arrow.

As he grows and his faculties mature [still further], he enjoys himself provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality: forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, accompanied with sensual desire; sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, accompanied with sensual desire.

On seeing a form with the eye, he is infatuated with pleasing forms, and gets upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't discern, as it has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Engaged thus in compliance & opposition, he relishes any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it, & remains fastened to it. As he relishes that feeling, welcomes it, & remains fastened to it, delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is clinging. From his clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:focus:
Attachments
AV BDASA.png
AV BDASA.png (74.11 KiB) Viewed 800 times
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Vipassana as a theravada tradition?

Post by DooDoot »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:03 am Hello friend,

Is that the same Buddhadasa who said:
So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and nothing to do with Buddhism at all. 
Is that the same Buddhadasa who said... :tantrum:
Aloka wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:32 pm
Definition of obsess in English:

obsess

VERB
[WITH OBJECT]

Preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually and to a troubling extent.

"he was obsessed with the idea of revenge"


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obsess
:rofl:
Dear friend. Since you are giving the impression to others (such as Aloka) of unsuccessfully ( :lol: ) trying so hard with strong effort to find small errors in Ajahn Buddhadasa's teachings so you can potentially completely demonize him, I will help you. The following are four matters you can focus on:

1. Is the following translation by Ajahn Buddhadasa to support his concept of "Two Kinds of Language" from Iti 23 & AN 5.53 accurate & true? If not, why? Please do not copy & paste but provide a well-reasoned explanation. Thanks :shrug:
Two Kinds of Language wrote:Appamatto ubho atthe adhiganhaghati pandito,

Ditthe dhamma ca yo attho, yo ca'ttho samparayiko.

Atthabhisamayadhiharo pandito ti pavuccati.

The wise and heedful person is familiar with both modes

of speaking: the meaning seen by ordinary people and

the meaning which they can't understand. One who is

fluent in the various modes of speaking is a wise person.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhik ... nguage.htm
2. Are the following views about two types of Nibbana accurate & true? :shrug:
Heartwood from the Bo Tree 1961 wrote: If there is an absolute and final extinction (anupadisesanibbanadhatu) then one becomes an arahant. If the extinction is incomplete (sa-upadisesanibbinadhatu) then one becomes one of the lesser Noble Ones, for there is still a remnant of ego, it is not the true ultimate emptiness of paramamsunnam.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Bhikk ... o_Tree.htm
Paticcasamuppada 1978 wrote:Another matter is the two kinds of Nibbana. Buddhagosa explains that when an Arahat dies it is called an-upadi-sesa-nibbtina: the full extinction of the groups of existence. An Arahat who is still alive is called sa-upadi-sesa-nibbana: the full extinction of defilements. These two kinds of nibbana are talked about a lot in the Visuddhimagga, but they are not in accordance with the Pali Tripitika (for example, the Ithivuttaka in the Khuddaka-nikaya).”

https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.c ... nation.pdf
3. Are the following (translated) views about "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho" accurate & true? :shrug:
Paticcasamuppada 1978 wrote:Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.

What is birth? It is being born, arising, coming to be among the various groups of sentient beings, the appearance of the various aggregates, the arising of a particular sense door.

https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.c ... nation.pdf
Anattā and Rebirth 1988 wrote:Consider the meaning of the word "birth." Birth is an important word which we hardly understand at all. There are three kinds of birth. The first is the kind of birth that everybody knows about, physical birth. The body is born out of the womb, and then grows older and older, and then dies and is put in a coffin. That is physical birth, it leads to physical death. The second kind of birth is mental. It happens within the mind following the stream of dependent origination. Whenever there is the thought "I am," "I do," "I act," "I have," "I own," "I want," "I get," "I exist," the birth of any one of these "I" thoughts is one birth. This is the "birth" of upādĀna along the stream of paticca-samuppāda, which is the birth of the ego. Such mental or spiritual birth is another kind of birth. The third kind of birth is very difficult for most people to understand. It is when one of the āyatana, that is, sense bases, performs its respective function. Performing some function means "that thing is born." You might not understand that when the eye performs the function of seeing, then the eye is born. When the eye stops functioning, then we say it ceases. When the ear performs its function, the ear is born; when it stops, the ear ceases. It is the same with the nose, tongue and so forth. There is the arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing, of the āyatananika-dhammas. Whenever something does its function, it is born, and when it is no longer in action, then it ceases, it ends. Each time the eye functions and ceases then functions again, it is a different eye. Can you see how the physical eye itself from one function to the next is not the same eye? How it is never the same ear, never the same nervous system? All these things are happening in this way but each time there is a birth, a different thing is born. There are only these functions, these processes, these activities happening over and over again. However, there is no same thing holding it all together that we could call a self. There are these three kinds of birth, nonetheless they aren't the birth of the same person or of the same thing. So there is no rebirth. Please get to know these three kinds of birth: the physical birth, the mental birth through attachment, and lastly, the third kind of birth happening whenever there is a sensory function.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Budd ... ebirth.pdf
4. Does "non-returner" mean "never returning to sensuality"? :shrug:
Handbook for Mankind - Emancipation from the World wrote:This grade of Aryian never again returns to the sensual state of existence. This is why he gets the name "Never - returner," one who will never come back. For him there is only movement forward and upward to Arahantship and Nirvana, in a state having nothing to do with sensuality.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa12.htm
Attachments
Buddhadasa old.png
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply