Manopubbangama wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:29 pm
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .than.html
"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no causality, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is causality, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of causality, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-causality.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.
The single taste of the Dhamma is both logically coherent and refreshing, so while I am indeed not an arahant, I have found that the flavor of the Dhamma is all the same, but Buddhadasa's ideas have a different taste.
I think it is important to go over the above post again
1. The translation "body" above is from the Pali "kaya", which actually means "group" or "collection", such as in the following Pali verse:
These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification (sakkaya) described by the Blessed One... MN 44
2. For Buddhadasa, "death" ("marana") refers to the death of the idea of a "person" or "self" or "ownership", similar to the verses below:
Long have you experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans. Long have you experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives...
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
"And what may be said to be subject to ... death...? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to ... death.... Subject to ... death...are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to ... death... This is ignoble search.
3. For Buddhadasa, the "planes of deprivation" exist in the mind, as follows:
the four Woeful States, which are depicted on the walls of temples — hell, the realm of beasts, the realm of hungry ghosts (petas), and the realm of cowardly demons (asuras). These are known as the Four Woeful States. We are taught to believe that on dying we may descend into the Woeful States. We are never taught that we fall into woeful states every day. Such woeful states are more real and more important than those on temple walls. Don’t fall at all! If you don’t fall into these woeful states now, you will be sure not to fall into any woeful states after death. This is never taught, so people never get to the essence and real meaning of the words “Four Woeful States”. The Buddha was not a materialist. He did not
take the body as his reference standard as does the story of the hell where one is boiled and fried in a copper pan. The Buddha took mind as his reference standard.
4. The suttas also say "heaven" and "hell" arise in the mind:
I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
“It is a gain for you, bhikkhus, it is well gained by you, that you have obtained the opportunity for living the holy life. I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
5. Ajahn Chah shared similar ideas to Buddhadasa, as follows:
For example, suppose we had an orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider them to be ''our own'' trees... then we are going to be ''born'' as a ''worm'' in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one, even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send out ''tentacles'' into every one of those trees.
Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house ''dies'' along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the ''birth.'' The ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner down.
6. Therefore, I think the suttas support some of the ideas of Buddhadasa. The Thai Buddhadasa appeared to have a spiritual or mental view .
7. The Buddhist tradition seems to allow these two different types of views. Buddhaghosa wrote:
Ad hominem comments removed by moderator from this post.
The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.
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,
Through 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.
(Mn. i. 95)