Saddha

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5281
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Saddha

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:07 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:54 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:23 am
Siha said he can see the benefits of the Dhamma in this life but as to the benefits in the next life he has to go by saddha. The Buddha confirmed that his saddha was well placed.
Ha, ha. The above again is following the ideas of Siha and not necessarily the Buddha. If you learn Pali, you may find "kaya" may not necessarily mean "physical body" and "marana" may not necessarily mean "physical death". The Buddha taught something, which Siha may have interpreted differently to the Buddha's realization yet the Buddha was happy for Siha to have his own interpretation; given such an interpretation may be of moral benefit to Siha. Unlike your own unsubstantiated words, the commentary says of the Lord Buddha: "Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions". Kind regards. :mrgreen:

When the Buddha said you will experience X after literally dying I guess he was lying

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5082
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Saddha

Post by DooDoot » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:24 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:07 am
When the Buddha said you will experience X after literally dying I guess he was lying
Unlike your own unsubstantiated words, the commentary says of the Lord Buddha: "Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions". :roll:

Btw, the suttas appear to literally say "marana" is the "death of a being" (SN 12.2) and also literally say "a being" is merely a view, word & convention (SN 5.10). If "marana" means "physical death" why do countless suttas all say Buddhas & Arahant do not "marana"? :shrug: :smile:
Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5281
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Saddha

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:54 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:24 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:07 am
When the Buddha said you will experience X after literally dying I guess he was lying
Unlike your own unsubstantiated words, the commentary says of the Lord Buddha: "Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions". :roll:

Btw, the suttas appear to literally say "marana" is the "death of a being" (SN 12.2) and also literally say "a being" is merely a view, word & convention (SN 5.10). If "marana" means "physical death" why do countless suttas all say Buddhas & Arahant do not "marana"? :shrug: :smile:
Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.


Which would mean he was lying to Siha since Siha had in mind that after death the good kamma would ripen. You are correct that no self would experience it’s results but you push the texts beyond limit in claiming that Buddha didn’t claim that after physical death dependent origination doesn’t continue with the results of kamma being experienced therein. Siha was correct that kamma has an impact post death but he was wrong in thinking there is a person who will be reborn.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5281
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Saddha

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:57 am

Arahants don’t die because self has been extinguished as have all pathways of language. Nothing in that supports your view that Buddha didn’t teach that kamma and DO continue post death. I mean, even Buddhadasa agreed 🤷🏻‍♂️

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5082
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Saddha

Post by DooDoot » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:07 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:54 am
Which would mean he was lying to Siha since Siha had in mind that after death the good kamma would ripen.

You are correct that no self would experience it’s results but you push the texts beyond limit in claiming that Buddha didn’t claim that after physical death dependent origination doesn’t continue with the results of kamma being experienced therein.

Siha was correct that kamma has an impact post death but he was wrong in thinking there is a person who will be reborn.

I mean, even Buddhadasa agreed
Its quite unfortunate the read the above modes of speech related to four matters but I have equanimity. :ugeek:

1. What Siha believed is unrelated to what the Buddha taught. The commentary says of the Lord Buddha: "The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true, characterizing dhammas as they really are. Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions".

2. I did not ever post the annihilationist view (such as explained in SN 12.17) that "no self" would experience kammic results.

3. Siha obviously believed he as a person would be reborn; which is the stock teaching of the Buddha about "upapajjati". The Buddha never taught 'no self' is "upapajjati". The Buddha always taught certain man, a certain woman or a certain "being" ('satta') is "upapajjati". "A being" ("satta") is the "self-view".

4. Buddhadasa did not ever agree with your point of view.

:popcorn:
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

Dinsdale
Posts: 6238
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Saddha

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:19 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:24 am

Btw, the suttas appear to literally say "marana" is the "death of a being" (SN 12.2) and also literally say "a being" is merely a view, word & convention (SN 5.10). If "marana" means "physical death" why do countless suttas all say Buddhas & Arahant do not "marana"? :shrug: :smile:
Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
I think you have mistaken the meaning here. The Pali for "Heedlessness is the path to death" is "pamado macuno padam". It doesn't refer to marana, which is the "physical" death of SN12.2, MN9, etc.
Probably the phrase "The heedless are as if dead already" conveys what is actually meant here. Like being "dead to the world" when you are lost in thought and unaware.
Again it is important to recognise that the meaning of words varies according to context, and that translations don't always capture the original meanings accurately.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5082
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Saddha

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:06 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:19 am
I think you have mistaken the meaning here.... The Pali for "Heedlessness is the path to death" is "pamado macuno padam". It doesn't refer to
Unlikely. I suggest to be heedful and at least consult a dictionary before posting on such a serious matter.
Snp.1100 (where maccu is explained by maraṇa & Māra;)
:alien:
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:19 am
marana, which is the "physical" death of SN 12.2, MN 9, etc.
There are countless suttas about Buddhas & Arahants who do not "marana". SN 12.2 & MN 9 literally say "marana" is the death of "beings". SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define "a being" is merely a "view" or "strong clinging". We have discussed this countless times before. It appears there is only evidence in the suttas supporting the interpretation that "marana" does not mean physical death. If "marana" referred to physical death, a Buddha would "marana".
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:19 am
Again it is important to recognise that the meaning of words varies according to context, and that translations don't always capture the original meanings accurately.
Its for you and not for me to follow the rant above. I have offered the evidence from the Lord Buddha many times, which it seems you continue to ignore. Time is passing fast. :smile:
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

Dinsdale
Posts: 6238
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Saddha

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:32 am

Again I am confused by your arguments, doo doot.
First you argue that death means physical death, then you argue that it doesn't mean physical death at all, rather it means "ego-death".

Physical death and ego-death are clearly not the same thing. I can't recall you explaining what you actually mean by "ego-death". It sounds like the cessation of self-view, not regarding the aggregates as me and mine. But maybe you mean something quite different?

Clearly the physical process of aging and inevitability of death lead to suffering because of identification with the body as me and mine. So the problem is not death itself, but the idea of the death of ME.
Maybe that's what you're trying to say, but until you clearly explain what you mean by "ego-death" it's just unclear.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
samsarictravelling
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:17 am
Contact:

Re: Saddha

Post by samsarictravelling » Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:36 am

Dear Friends in Dhamma,

Is there a passage which defines saddha (faith/conviction) as conviction in kamma and its fruit? I seem to recall there is, but can only find its opposite quality (doubt) defined as a lack of conviction in kamma and its fruit....

Metta and Peace,
Bowing and thanks,
Abhaya/Andrew
Dear Friends in Dhamma (again,)

I should specify that I'm hoping for a sutta passage and not something commentarial. Any definition of saddha besides conviction in the Lord Buddha or the Triple Gem will do.

Metta and peace,
Bowing and thanks,
Abhaya/Andrew
Hi UpasakaAbhaya,

The below is what I say, my beliefs. I may have got the Dhamma right, or maybe instead incorrect in some way with what I will say, so read with that caution in mind:

I would like to say Theravada Buddhism is never about blind belief. As far as I believe, 'saddha' is 'conviction' rather than 'blind belief'.

What do I mean? Your 'faith' -- or in other words, 'conviction' -- comes by reasoning out what you have heard, not accepting something with the fear of questioning it (what I would call 'blind faith').

So Theravada Buddhism's definiton of saddha -- conviction or faith -- can come from one fearlessly questioning what we have heard from others.

Another point with Theravada Buddhism: there are two ways to gaining knowledge. One way is by hearing the teachings of others. The second is thinking in one's own mind. So we hear the Buddhist teachings, then think (investigate) those same teachings. From these two ways of gaining knowledge, the result is conviction in the Buddhist teachings -- but that is only if the Buddha's teachings seem reasonable to one.

The Kalama sutta of Theravada Buddhism teaches the second part of gaining knowledge (investigating/thinking). It says don't accept anything just because your teacher has told you it.

Now, back to saddha/faith/conviction (just three different words for the same thing). You want a sutta selection that connects the doctrine of kamma with saddha/conviction/faith. The following selection from a sutta -- the Majjhima Nikaya 60 -- shows the two ways of gaining knowledge (knowledge can mean, here in the context of the selection I will give, saddha/conviction/faith) in action: hearing Dhamma, then thinking about it.

Majjhima Nikāya 60 - The Incontrovertible Teaching:

The selection is the whole section under 'ii. The Doctrine of Non-Doing':

A “Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act, when one mutilates or makes others mutilate, when one tortures or makes others inflict torture, when one inflicts sorrow or makes others inflict sorrow, when one oppresses or makes others inflict oppression, when one intimidates or makes others inflict intimidation, when one kills living beings, takes what is not given, breaks into houses, plunders wealth, commits burglary, ambushes highways, seduces another’s wife, utters falsehood—no evil is done by the doer. If, with a razor-rimmed wheel, one were to make the living beings on this earth into one mass of flesh, into one heap of flesh, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing and slaughtering, mutilating and making others mutilate, torturing and making others inflict torture, because of this there would be no evil and no outcome of evil. If one were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving gifts and making others give gifts, making offerings and making others make offerings, because of this there would be no merit and no outcome of merit. By giving, by taming oneself, by restraint, by speaking truth, there is no merit and no outcome of merit.’

B “Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘When one acts or makes others act, when one mutilates or makes others mutilate…utters falsehood—evil is done by the doer. If, with a razor-rimmed wheel, one were to make the living beings on this earth into one mass of flesh, into one heap of flesh, because of this there would be evil and the outcome of evil. If one were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing and slaughtering, mutilating and making others mutilate, torturing and making others inflict torture, because of this there would be evil and the outcome of evil. If one were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving gifts and making others give gifts, making offerings and making others make offerings, because of this there would be merit and the outcome of merit. By giving, by taming oneself, by restraint, by speaking truth, there is merit and the outcome of merit.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”

A.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act…there is no merit and no outcome of merit,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.

A.ii “Since there actually is doing, one who holds the view ‘there is no doing’ has wrong view. Since there actually is doing, one who intends ‘there is no doing’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is doing, one who makes the statement ‘there is no doing’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is doing, one who says ‘there is no doing’ is opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine that there is doing. Since there actually is doing, one who convinces another ‘there is no doing’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept an untrue Dhamma, and self-praise and disparagement of others—these several evil unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.

A.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is no doing, then on the dissolution of the body this good person will have made himself safe enough. But if there is doing, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no doing: still this good person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of non-doing. But on the other hand, if there is doing, then this good person has made an unlucky throw on both counts: since he is censured by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. He has wrongly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends only to one side and excludes the wholesome alternative.’

B.i “Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘When one acts or makes others act…there is merit and outcome of merit,’ it is to be expected that they will avoid these three unwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins see in unwholesome states the danger, degradation, and defilement, and they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.

B.ii “Since there actually is doing, one who holds the view ‘there is doing’ has right view. Since there actually is doing, one who intends ‘there is doing’ has right intention. Since there actually is doing, one who makes the statement ‘there is doing’ has right speech. Since there actually is doing, one who says ‘there is doing’ is not opposed to those arahants who hold the doctrine that there is doing. Since there actually is doing, one who convinces another ‘there is doing’ convinces him to accept true Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept true Dhamma, he does not praise himself and disparage others. Thus any corrupt conduct that he formerly had is abandoned and pure virtue is substituted. And this right view, right intention, right speech, non-opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept true Dhamma, and avoidance of self-praise and disparagement of others—these several wholesome states thus come into being with right view as their condition.

B.iii “About this a wise man considers thus: ‘If there is doing, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, this good person will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Now whether or not the word of those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that there is no doing: still this good person is here and now praised by the wise as a virtuous person, one with right view who holds the doctrine of doing. And on the other hand, if there is doing, then this good person has made a lucky throw on both counts: since he is praised by the wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. He has rightly accepted and undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends to both sides and excludes the unwholesome alternative.’

Source of selection: https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/bodhi

From,
samsarictravelling

P.S. Please excuse me if I do not reply to any reply of yours or others. I am busy with things in my life that I might possibly have no time to spare for replying back to any replies to this answer of mine.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests