Re: How are the views of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarded?
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:06 am
As moderator: Please keep posting to the subject, and please refrain from making the argument about individuals.
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
but who is Patrick, Peter or Jennifer. It doesn't care!!. One must use hiw own understanding and faith. What Buddha teached was not Theravada or Mahayana but the end of dukkha. There is not end of dukkha without emptiness, and this is the teaching of Buddha summarizing the whole Tipitaka. All efforts, knowledge and moral discipline, all them are developed in order to realize emptiness. In sunnata there is not death therefore there is not rebirth. For this reason this is the end of suffering. Rebirth only exists when there is ignorance.Patrick said to me Tan Ajahn Buddhadasa was Mahayana because he taught sunyata.
Patrick is actually Patrick Kearney, a highly respected lay vipassana teacher in Australia.zerotime wrote:but who is Patrick, Peter or Jennifer. It doesn't care!!.Patrick said to me Tan Ajahn Buddhadasa was Mahayana because he taught sunyata.
I hope that neither am I. The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach. I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.tiltbillings wrote:Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.Present wrote:Tiltbillingstiltbillings wrote: Buddhadasa followers aggressively pushing what they said were Buddhadasa's views as if they were the only truly true way to approach the Buddha's Dhamma, anything else being simply wrong.
Respectfully, how could that be?
Santikaro wrote:I hope that neither am I. The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach. I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.tiltbillings wrote:tiltbillings wrote: Buddhadasa followers aggressively pushing what they said were Buddhadasa's views as if they were the only truly true way to approach the Buddha's Dhamma, anything else being simply wrong.
Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.
There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding. It's not just the ideas that are "right," but how they are held & presented. Anatta is considered right understanding but wielded as a 'weapon of the tongue' it becomes wrong understanding.
Rebirth -- in the conventional, literal sense -- is also considered right understanding. Note in 'The Great Forty' (MN 117) the distinction b/w worldly/conventional right understanding and transcendent/liberating right understanding.
May all beings be free of being beings.
stuka wrote:Peter wrote:He taught that views get left behind by one who has known and seen, aka one who is sotapanna or higher. Are you claiming to be sotapanna or higher?[The Buddha] taught that the path is progressive, that views need to be left behind sooner or later.
Your direct source for this claim, please.
tiltbillings wrote:Thank you for sharing your opinion. No reincarnation. No need for it and no need for your clever "not-an-Atta."stuka wrote:It declares it a speculative wrong view, in the discussion of eternalistic views prior to the quote. It's just that you have declared an Atta that is reincarnated, merely calling it not-an-Atta.tiltbillings wrote:
Sure, but there is nothing in that that negates rebirth (without atta).
I'm not going so far as saying 1st nyana is irrelevant, it might be supportive, but it isn't the fully liberating nyana. His criticisms of the 3-lifetime interpretation weren't, to my memory, based on his understanding of the 1st nyana.Peter wrote:Ah, I see. Taking this in conjunction with something you said earlier...Santikaro wrote:In the "three lifetimes interpretation" (found in the Visuddhimagga) of the classic paticcasamuppada sequence, rebirth & dukkha occur in the future, which is taken to be a life after the physical death of the entity or whatever that was craving & clinging. Assuming that one entity does the craving & clinging and another experiences the rebirth & dukkha, how can either of them fully realize the causal relations?
Tan Ajahn considered the 1st nyana not relevant to awakening and then criticized the 3-lifetime model for being dependent on the 1st nyana? Could you explain this apparent circular logic?Santikaro wrote:The usual citation is to the first of the 3 nyanas under the bodhi tree, but that overlooks the not-yet-awakened (tho almost) situation of the bodhisatta. Tan Ajahn considered the 3rd nyana far more important, that is, causal for the great awakening.
I don't think that's what I am talking about. As for others, who is to know but them, if they are sufficiently mindful?Peter wrote:I suppose if I thought liberation depended on my being able to recall past lives and I also thought my chances of ever developing the ability to recall past lives were slim to none I might be tempted to reinterpret the Teachings in a way more suitable for my situation. I hope that's not what we're talking about here.
Conventional does not mean untrue or dishonest. Conventional -- sometimes referred to as 'relative truth' but I'm not trying to set up any absolute truths -- is in terms of persons, beings, and entities that do things like karma, birth, death, arguing, denying, believing, wondering, and confusing.Peter wrote:I have heard this said before but remain confused as to what it means. Does it mean the Buddha lied?Santikaro wrote:Tan Ajahn took [references to sotapanna, etc.] to be conventional comments, not essential liberating truths.
Is there a way to approach online forums as practice rather than papanca? For me, they can be opportunities for service, patience, being mindful of opinions & reactions, etc. But they can also become -- speaking for myself -- escapist, obsessive, and distracting from the middle way. I guess, once again, it's wise to be ever mindful of motivations and somewhat skeptical of our rationalizations, which are creative, self-serving, and convincing. Oh my!Peter wrote:Seems to me as well. But people in online forums love to discuss theories and rarely discuss anything practical. We get occasional flashes of practicality which for me makes it worthwhile to hang around.Santikaro wrote:Seems to me that the emphasis of the Buddha's teaching is seeing the impermanence, concoctedness, and selflessness of the stuff going on more than getting certain theories about the stuff right.
Thank you for taking the time to address my queries. I am finding it helpful.
You lived with your teacher, heard his words, seen him day in and out, you trusted him and he trusted you. That is something very different, very special.Santikaro wrote:I hope that neither am I.tiltbillings wrote:
Don't ask me. I am not a Buddhadasa aficionado.
I would hope that would be the case, and it is good to hear.The way you are using the word aficionado, linked above with aggressiveness, leads me to think that such pushing is not in keeping w/ Tan Ajahn's approach.
Ven Buddhadasa’s views are welcome here as part of the larger, ongoing civil discussion of the Buddha’s teachings. I would see Ven Buddhadasa’s teachings as a way of understanding the Buddha’s teachings. My preferences run more in line with Vens Mahasi Sayadaw and U Pandita understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. These two differing ways neither exclude nor negate each other. I would like to think we can express our understandings of our respective points of view, learning from both the differences and from where they say much the same things. We can disagree with each other without being at each other’s throats, and, Santikaro, from reading what you say, I think that is highly possible. Thank you.I have done my share of pushing and it is not the middle way, it doesn't serve the Buddha. The MW of teaching & practice is neither aggressive nor passive. Nor is it opinionated, intellectually sloppy, or lazy.
There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding. It's not just the ideas that are "right," but how they are held & presented. Anatta is considered right understanding but wielded as a 'weapon of the tongue' it becomes wrong understanding.
Rebirth -- in the conventional, literal sense -- is also considered right understanding. Note in 'The Great Forty' (MN 117) the distinction b/w worldly/conventional right understanding and transcendent/liberating right understanding.
May all beings be free of being beings.
Present wrote:Santikaro,Santikaro wrote:Yes, hard to ignore those passages. They are rather common. But what do they mean?
The Buddha informed us at the end of one sutta in the MN why he disclosed destinations, and the reason was to inspire faith.
I trust one of our dhamma friends here knows the passage & discourse and can post it.
lofty"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
Also MN 95: Canki SuttaSantikaro wrote:There's a passage in the Sutta-nipata (I can't reference it properly as I am traveling) that describes the attitude of "only this is the truth, all others are wrong" as wrong understanding.
Metta"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
Zerotimezerotime wrote:In sunnata there is not death therefore there is not rebirth.
Thank you for your time.Please find below a series of recommendations for appropriate conduct and approach within this specialised forum.
1. Be nice to each other
Basic interpersonal decency must be observed within this forum. Feel free to attack the ideas of others, but never attack them personally, either directly or by inference. This need for interpersonal decency extends also to those who may have originally conceived the ideas being debated (e.g. the Buddha, commentators, bhikkhus, scholars).
2. If you notice that Point 1 is not being observed...
Use the Report Post function and we will attend to your report as quickly as practicable, given our available staff. Please do not publicly quote and object to the content of a post, because this then embeds it within the flow of conversation and it becomes difficult for moderators to extract the offending material without disrupting the thread. Public complaints, regardless of how legitimate, tend to take threads off-topic and have a tendency to become a sideshow unto themselves.
3. The "Free-for-all" forum may not be suitable for everyone
The purpose of this sub-forum is to openly permit important and challenging discussion on the Dhamma. By establishing a particular forum as a Free-For-All, albeit one where members must still be nice to each other, we aim to keep other areas of the site free from vociferous debate. We have attempted to establish an appropriate time and place for everything, with well established boundaries that will be enforced. Therefore, if you deem that vociferous debate is not conducive to your practice, you have the opportunity to fine tune your experience at Dhamma Wheel by sticking to forums better aligned with your practice that will be protected from such intense debate.
I think you are right; this is the real engine for wisdom and knowledge just the resultant movement.Truthfulness, honesty, straightforwardness (sacca). This is a practitioners most basic development, as advised by the Lord Buddha himself.
Even for a householder, the Buddha taught there are four vital dhammas: sacca (honesty), dama (training), kanti (patience) & caga (sacrifice).
These four householder dhammas, I have read from the suttas and also heard them imparted by Buddhadasa.