Denisa wrote:I did lot of charity, especially towards poor people even before I became a Buddhist. But it never occurred to me: "how much merit I gain from this generosity? Is it big? Whether people recognize me for my generosity? What will I get in next life?" I did them because it helps someone in need, made them happy, and I felt wholesomely happy by letting go something I possess. Only after getting touched with Buddhism I saw a greater deal of emphasis on merit making. From my understanding on kamma, every action (in this case generosity) can create a result whether you worry about merit or not. I think if one crave for merit that will not serve the purpose of generosity/letting go, it would be more like a business transaction.
There is a sutta where the Buddha lays out the various kinds of mental states and views that one may have when giving. I seem to remember that the best mental state was the view that (rough quote): "this giving is for the purification of mind". Lower in the order was the "business transaction" view, but it is still productive of merit.
Sorry I don't have the reference.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Mkoll wrote:
There is a sutta where the Buddha lays out the various kinds of mental states and views that one may have when giving. I seem to remember that the best mental state was the view that (rough quote): "this giving is for the purification of mind". Lower in the order was the "business transaction" view, but it is still productive of merit.
AN 7.49: Dana Sutta wrote:
Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
...
but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
Sure, there are some interesting ideas in their work. But I'm not aware of them addressing the subject of this thread. Which is why I said.
mikenz66 wrote:It's interesting in how it differs from other criticisms.
Most modern criticism of the Theravada Commentaries (translated and/or written by Buddhaghosa) that get brought up here concern tricky doctrinal points (e.g. Ven Nanananda etc) to do with the nature of reality, or other subtle issues.
I may be wrong, since I have not read everything that they have written...
Personally I find the idea of some "Great Betrayal" overly hyperbolic. As far as my experience goes, there's some helpful stuff in the ancient commentaries. And there's some helpful stuff in the writings of Ven Nanananda and other modern interpreters. It's useful that we have these various analyses to draw out the possible ways of interpreting and applying the Dhamma.
mikenz66 wrote:Sure, there are some interesting ideas in their work. But I'm not aware of them addressing the subject of this thread. Which is why I said.
mikenz66 wrote:It's interesting in how it differs from other criticisms.
Most modern criticism of the Theravada Commentaries (translated and/or written by Buddhaghosa) that get brought up here concern tricky doctrinal points (e.g. Ven Nanananda etc) to do with the nature of reality, or other subtle issues.
I may be wrong, since I have not read everything that they have written...
Personally I find the idea of some "Great Betrayal" overly hyperbolic. As far as my experience goes, there's some helpful stuff in the ancient commentaries. And there's some helpful stuff in the writings of Ven Nanananda and other modern interpreters. It's useful that we have these various analyses to draw out the possible ways of interpreting and applying the Dhamma.
Mike
I meant that they are of more substance than the complaints in the paper.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Well, they do make some interesting points (Ven Nanananda much more than Ven Nanavira, in my view) but as far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of taste whose particular interpretations you find useful... It's not as if any commentators can prove that their interpretation is the only possible one.
But perhaps we should get back to the topic. I guess one interesting question is whether the blame for the (alleged) misguided emphasis on "merit making" really originates from misleading statements in the Commentaries, or whether it is from ignorance of the Dhamma on the part of the merit makers.
Kasina wrote:For anyone looking for more in-depth criticism of Buddhaghosa/Commentarial views, I might recommend the writings of Ven's Nanananda and Nanavira.
Thank you very much Kasina, I'll look into them. I'm already going through the writings by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Analayo, and finding many more through their bibliographies. I have no concern in Buddhaghosa & Commentaries as they contradict too much with the Sutta. My main focus is first four Nikayas.
culaavuso wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
There is a sutta where the Buddha lays out the various kinds of mental states and views that one may have when giving. I seem to remember that the best mental state was the view that (rough quote): "this giving is for the purification of mind". Lower in the order was the "business transaction" view, but it is still productive of merit.
AN 7.49: Dana Sutta wrote:
Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
...
but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
As always thank you very much Mkoll & culaavuso, that's exactly what I was talking about.
There's nothing Buddhist about going up & down in realms (born in deva realms and then coming to a lower realm). Or wondering in Samsara because that's the default, there's no need of a Buddhism to do that. Buddha's teachings needed for those who need to end the Samsara.
85. Few among men are those who cross to the farther shore. The rest, the bulk of men, only run up and down the hither bank. Dhammapada
Denisa wrote:
There's nothing Buddhist about going up & down in realms (born in deva realms and then coming to a lower realm). Or wondering in Samsara because that's the default, there's no need of a Buddhism to do that. Buddha's teachings needed for those who need to end the Samsara.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Are you claiming that the suttas do not talk about such realms? There are a number of sutta references here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html
And many more in the links of the suttas references in Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "In the Buddha's Words".
There are links to on-line versions of most of the suttas here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14640
In particular see Chapter I, section (4), and Chapter V.
mikenz66 wrote:Well, they do make some interesting points (Ven Nanananda much more than Ven Nanavira, in my view) but as far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of taste whose particular interpretations you find useful... It's not as if any commentators can prove that their interpretation is the only possible one.
But perhaps we should get back to the topic. I guess one interesting question is whether the blame for the (alleged) misguided emphasis on "merit making" really originates from misleading statements in the Commentaries, or whether it is from ignorance of the Dhamma on the part of the merit makers.
Mike
I agree.
Sorry, back to topic then. I just thought someone might be interested in them.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Denisa wrote:
There's nothing Buddhist about going up & down in realms (born in deva realms and then coming to a lower realm). Or wondering in Samsara because that's the default, there's no need of a Buddhism to do that. Buddha's teachings needed for those who need to end the Samsara.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Are you claiming that the suttas do not talk about such realms? There are a number of sutta references here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html
And many more in the links of the suttas references in Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "In the Buddha's Words".
There are links to on-line versions of most of the suttas here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14640
In particular see Chapter I, section (4), and Chapter V.
Mike
the purport of the Dhamma is to cross over the stream to the other side, not to splash about in the stream, so aiming at accumulating merit and fixation on it basically defeats the purpose of the Dhamma, the first thing a person should be concerned with is realizing nibbana
but the shift in focus of the practice for laity is understandable, they cannot invest as much time in it as monks so chances of realizing nibbana soon enough for them are even slimmer anyway
the Dhamma wasn't meant for laity in the first place and thus compromise had to be invented to engage them in it and keep as benefactors of the Order
Upaneyyam Sutta (SN 1.3) wrote:
Thus have I heard. At one time the Blessed One was staying near Saavatthii, at Jeta Grove, in Anaathapi.n.dika's park. Now a certain deva, as the night was passing away, lighting up the whole Jeta Grove with his effulgent beauty, approached the Blessed One and, having approached, stood on one side.
Standing thus on one side, the deva spoke this verse before the Blessed One:
Life but leads to doom. Our time is short.
From Decay there's naught can keep us safe.
Contemplating thus the fear of death,
Let's make merit that will bring us bliss.
[The Blessed One replied:]
Life but leads to doom. Our time is short.
From Decay there's naught can keep us safe.
Contemplating thus this fear of death,
Scorn such worldly bait, seek final peace.
LXNDR wrote:the Dhamma wasn't meant for laity in the first place and thus compromise had to be invented to engage them in it and keep as benefactors of the Order
There are many, many suttas directed addressed specifically to laypeople and householders by the Buddha himself. There are suttas where householders are said to have Noble attainments. Are you suggesting that all of these suttas are later inventions?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
LXNDR wrote:the Dhamma wasn't meant for laity in the first place and thus compromise had to be invented to engage them in it and keep as benefactors of the Order
There are many, many suttas directed addressed specifically to laypeople and householders by the Buddha himself. There are suttas where householders are said to have Noble attainments. Are you suggesting that all of these suttas are later inventions?
no, i am not
the compromise could have been invented by the Buddha himself, if everybody would go forth into the homelessness there would be nobody left to feed the Sangha
however if practicing Dhamma wouldn't require renunciation of the world, Buddha wouldn't have created the Order or recommended a recluse lifestyle, after all this is the way he himself achieved liberation
nibbana is difficult enough to be attained even by a renunciate, let alone by a lay person immersed in worldly affairs
Last edited by LXNDR on Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
LXNDR wrote:however if practicing Dhamma wouldn't require renunciation of the world, Buddha wouldn't have created the Order or recommended a recluse lifestyle, after all this is the way he himself achieved liberation
The Buddha taught householders how to practice the Dhamma. So practicing Dhamma doesn't require renunciation of the world.
Perhaps you meant that realizing Nibbana requires renunciation of the world?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
LXNDR wrote:however if practicing Dhamma wouldn't require renunciation of the world, Buddha wouldn't have created the Order or recommended a recluse lifestyle, after all this is the way he himself achieved liberation
The Buddha taught householders how to practice the Dhamma. So practicing Dhamma doesn't require renunciation of the world.
Perhaps you meant that realizing Nibbana requires renunciation of the world?
Yes, that's a good way of putting it. The suttas linked from In the Buddha's Wordshttp://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14640 have been organised into different levels of practising the Dhamma, ranging from making merit to renunciation.
While I do know some Asian lay people who I would say over-emphasise merit, it's not so clear cut. Some of them, while not being so obviously gung ho as a lot of Western converts have clearly made quite a lot of progress with their practice. Their calm and so on is obvious if you spend time with them.
On the other side, I see some Western converts who don't see the need to develop the basics of generosity and virtue.
So I think that it is important to examine the big picture, and not dismiss the teachings directed to lay people.
