Actors go to Hell?

[vesak2014]

I wonder whether I misunderstand the sutta.
This is an old thread so I'd like to ask (for confirmation) those who commented recently (clw_uk, waterchan, David N. Snyder.)
After reading the sutta, according to it, you guys think actors go to hell? Seriously?

Who can say

If we take the position of all suttas being authentic, the Buddha never lying and rebirth postmortem being true, then yes actors go to hell.

Why don't you read again the sutta and this time read carefully and thoroughly. Then answer which view do you hold:
a) actors go to hell (or animal realm)
b) one who holds the view that "actors go to hell" will go to hell (or animal realm)

Or is that sutta inauthentic? However if it is, how do we know what other suttas are authentic and which are embellished?

Sutta is authentic to the extent of one's conviction in the Triple Gems.

[Modus.Ponens]

I wonder whether I misunderstand the sutta.
This is an old thread so I'd like to ask (for confirmation) those who commented recently (clw_uk, waterchan, David N. Snyder.)
After reading the sutta, according to it, you guys think actors go to hell? Seriously?

Who can say

If we take the position of all suttas being authentic, the Buddha never lying and rebirth postmortem being true, then yes actors go to hell.

Why don't you read again the sutta and this time read carefully and thoroughly. Then answer which view do you hold:
a) actors go to hell (or animal realm)
b) one who holds the view that "actors go to hell" will go to hell (or animal realm)

Or is that sutta inauthentic? However if it is, how do we know what other suttas are authentic and which are embellished?

Sutta is authentic to the extent of one's conviction in the Triple Gems.

I'm not sure of what you're trying to say.

Anyway, I have strong faith in the triple gem. That doesn't mean I have strong faith in texts that are meant to represent teachings that were heard 450 years before they were written down. Such texts have been around for 2050 years. Since we've seen what happened to Milindapaña in the Burmese canon, for no valid reason, what makes me sure that some politician with power wouldn't like to put comedians in order? Authority has never dealt well with comedy.

[Mkoll]

Since we've seen what happened to Milindapaña in the Burmese canon, for no valid reason, what makes me sure that some politician with power wouldn't like to put comedians in order?

[emphasis added]

Can you or someone who knows about this let us know the details?

Thanks.

[robertk]

The burmese decided to elevate the Milindapanha to part of the tipitika as they felt it wasnt really a Commentary.

[waterchan]

I wonder whether I misunderstand the sutta.
This is an old thread so I'd like to ask (for confirmation) those who commented recently (clw_uk, waterchan, David N. Snyder.)
After reading the sutta, according to it, you guys think actors go to hell? Seriously?

From a scholarly viewpoint, the suttas contain a massive amount of frequently repeated teachings. Therefore the critically minded reader would do well to be suspicious of any one-off teachings that do not enjoy the support of other suttas, such as this one.

From a doctrinal Buddhist standpoint, there are only three actions that guarantee a rebirth in hell: killing one's parents, killing an arahant, and injuring the Buddha.

I wouldn't worry about it.

[chownah]

From a doctrinal Buddhist standpoint, there are only three actions that guarantee a rebirth in hell: killing one's parents, killing an arahant, and injuring the Buddha.

Ok then....being an actor does not QUARANTEE that you will go to hell......but then being a killer does not guarantee it either....I guess....don't know for sure......
chownah

[Mkoll]

The burmese decided to elevate the Milindapanha to part of the tipitika as they felt it wasnt really a Commentary.

Oh yeah, that's right.

[Mkoll]

From a doctrinal Buddhist standpoint, there are only three actions that guarantee a rebirth in hell: killing one's parents, killing an arahant, and injuring the Buddha.

Ok then....being an actor does not QUARANTEE that you will go to hell......but then being a killer does not guarantee it either....I guess....don't know for sure......
chownah

I think those 3 most evil actions waterchan listed guarantee a trip to hell in the next life. But if one doesn't do such things, then the next life's destination is less clear. What is clear is that doing evil things does sow the seeds for poor destinations in some future life, just not necessarily the next one.

6. "Ananda, there are four kinds of persons existing in the world. What four?

(i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.[4] On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

(ii) "But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

(iii) "Here some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sexual desires, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, he is not covetous, is not ill-willed, and has right view.[5] On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

(iv) "But here some person abstains from killing living beings... and has right view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

[Mr Man]

And where is the hell located that actors might go to?

[tiltbillings]

And where is the hell located that actors might go to?

Good question, but most likely they will be directed by Ed Wood once they get there.

[mikenz66]

From a scholarly viewpoint, the suttas contain a massive amount of frequently repeated teachings. Therefore the critically minded reader would do well to be suspicious of any one-off teachings that do not enjoy the support of other suttas, such as this one.

This is not a one-off teaching. As a minimum, we have the sequence of suttas SN 42.2-42.6 http://suttacentral.net/sn42 and MN 57 http://suttacentral.net/en/mn57 about how wrong view leads to hell:

But should he hold such a view as this: ‘If an actor, in the theatre or the arena, entertains and amuses people by truth and lies, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas’—that is a wrong view on his part. For a person with wrong view, I say, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal realm.”

But should he hold such a view as this: ‘When a mercenary strives and exerts himself in battle, if others slay him and finish him off while he is striving and exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the battle-slain devas’—that is a wrong view on his part. For a person with wrong view, I say, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal realm.”

Here, Puṇṇa, someone develops the dog-duty fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-habit fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-mind fully and uninterruptedly; he develops dog-behaviour fully and uninterruptedly. Having done so, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if he has such a view as this: ‘By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall become a great god or some lesser god,’ that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal realm. So, Puṇṇa, if his dog-duty succeeds, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it fails, it will lead him to hell.”

Mike

[Sam Vara]

From a scholarly viewpoint, the suttas contain a massive amount of frequently repeated teachings. Therefore the critically minded reader would do well to be suspicious of any one-off teachings that do not enjoy the support of other suttas, such as this one.

This is not a one-off teaching. As a minimum, we have the sequence of suttas SN 42.2-42.6 http://suttacentral.net/sn42 and MN 57 http://suttacentral.net/en/mn57 about how wrong view leads to hell:

But should he hold such a view as this: ‘If an actor, in the theatre or the arena, entertains and amuses people by truth and lies, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas’—that is a wrong view on his part. For a person with wrong view, I say, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal realm.”

But should he hold such a view as this: ‘When a mercenary strives and exerts himself in battle, if others slay him and finish him off while he is striving and exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the battle-slain devas’—that is a wrong view on his part. For a person with wrong view, I say, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal realm.”

Here, Puṇṇa, someone develops the dog-duty fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-habit fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-mind fully and uninterruptedly; he develops dog-behaviour fully and uninterruptedly. Having done so, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if he has such a view as this: ‘By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall become a great god or some lesser god,’ that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal realm. So, Puṇṇa, if his dog-duty succeeds, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it fails, it will lead him to hell.”

Mike

A small but important clarification here. Waterchan raises two questions:
1) Whether an actor goes to hell
2) Whether one goes to hell for anything other than killing parents, killing arahants, or injuring the Buddha.

Your sequence of SN suttas quite correctly proves that, in the case of question (2), the answer is yes: wrong view is also a cause of going to hell.

But I think Waterchan's point about "one-off" examples is about question (1) - actors going to hell.

[mikenz66]

True, but I think that the wrong view is the key point in these suttas. It's the wrong view question that the Buddha only answers aftet is is asked three times.

Furthermore, the key point here seems to be not acting in itself, but the "intoxication and heedlessness" of both the actor and the audience:

Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Mike

[Modus.Ponens]

True, but I think that the wrong view is the key point in these suttas. It's the wrong view question that the Buddha only answers aftet is is asked three times.

Furthermore, the key point here seems to be not acting in itself, but the "intoxication and heedlessness" of both the actor and the audience:

Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Mike

I would agree that the problem is not the acting in itself, but the attachment and aversion involved in that process. If that's the case, I think there's not much to make out of this discussion aside from the fact that engaging in attachment and aversion, and encouraging others to do so, contributes to a bad rebirth.

[vesak2014]

I'm not sure of what you're trying to say.

Anyway, I have strong faith in the triple gem. That doesn't mean I have strong faith in texts that are meant to represent teachings that were heard 450 years before they were written down. Such texts have been around for 2050 years. Since we've seen what happened to Milindapaña in the Burmese canon, for no valid reason, what makes me sure that some politician with power wouldn't like to put comedians in order? Authority has never dealt well with comedy.

I was trying to help people to free from holding wrong view, i.e. the view that actors go to hell, which comes from misunderstanding of the sutta. So far there are a few people who didn't misunderstand the sutta: Jechbi, robertk, mikenz66.

I was referring to the sutta in question, i.e. Talaputa Sutta, SN 42.2, a sutta from Samyutta Nikaya. I didn't mean to say ALL suttas including commentaries. I personally believe only in four main Nikayas, i.e. DN, MN, SN, AN, and Milindapana is not part of them. (btw that's my personal belief and I don't expect anyone to follow or agree with)
clw_uk questioned the authenticity of a sutta from a most regarded authentic sutta collection. In that case, the authenticity of such sutta depends on the one's conviction in triple gems.