Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by Polar Bear » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:32 am

robertk wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:30 pm

A rather unfortunate translation, as he was hit accidently, no angry mob involved.
The story is originally from MN 86

Sujato’s translation:
Then Venerable Aṅgulimāla robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Sāvatthī for alms. Now at that time someone threw a stone that hit Aṅgulimāla, someone else threw a stick, and someone else threw gravel. Then Aṅgulimāla—with cracked head, bleeding, his bowl broken, and his outer robe torn—went to the Buddha. The Buddha saw him coming off in the distance, and said: “Endure it, brahmin! Endure it, brahmin! You’re experiencing in this life the result of deeds that might have caused you to be tormented in hell for many years, many hundreds or thousands of years.”


https://suttacentral.net/mn86/en/sujato
Thanissaro’s:
Then Ven. Aṅgulimāla, early in the morning, having adjusted his lower robe and taking his bowl & outer robe, went into Sāvatthī for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Aṅgulimāla on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Aṅgulimāla—his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds—went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: “Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here & now!”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/M ... mn86note03
It doesn’t say whether it was intentional or accidental, but I could see how someone would assume that the coincidence of being hit 3 times accidentally seems unlikely, and so that Angulimala must have been hit on purpose. Of course, the unlikliness of that many accidents happening on one’s almsround can also be taken to show that kamma will find a way to bear fruit.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by robertk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:36 am

this is the pali.
no " angry mob" or indication that he was the intended victim.
Tena kho pana samayena aññenapi leḍḍu khitto āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati, aññenapi daṇḍo khitto āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati, aññenapi sakkharā khittā āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by AgarikaJ » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:35 am

robertk wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:36 am
this is the pali.
no " angry mob" or indication that he was the intended victim.
Tena kho pana samayena aññenapi leḍḍu khitto āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati, aññenapi daṇḍo khitto āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati, aññenapi sakkharā khittā āyasmato aṅgulimālassa kāye nipatati
I think from the objects that hit him, it can be concluded quite conclusively that he did not collide with them accidentally or all by himself:

- leḍḍu ; a clod of earth .
- daṇḍo ; A staff , a pole ; a haudle ; a stalk or stem ; punishment , penalty ; violence , cruelty
- sakkharā ; A potsherd ; gravel ; clayed or brown sugar , jaggery , sugar

As such it is not a great logical jump to conclude that they were not flying through the air by magic, but that somebody must have thrown them or hit Aṅgulimāla with them. Incidentally they seem just like the objects people would find by the wayside when meeting somebody walking along a village road.

As the past of Aṅgulimāla was well known, it is further quite likely -- in my opinion -- that Aṅgulimāla met indeed at least one, maybe several aggrieved attackers, as there would have to be scores of grieving relatives of his victims living right throughout the region of Sāvatthī.

More interesting is, that he got off so lightly and that these village people did not follow him in the compound of the Buddha; or that he was attacked regularly on his alms rounds instead of suffering this isolated incident (or the Sutta at least does not tell us).

As such, the moral authority of the Buddha was big enough to largely protect his monks as long as they wore their robes, even the most wayward ones (and the Suttas are quite full of sexual misconduct and other behavior -- which would be found to be outrageous if some modern Guru or other religious leader could be brought in connection with them).
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
StormBorn
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by StormBorn » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:42 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
StormBorn wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:53 pm
EBT wise, it’s awfully at stake to say MN 135 is late since it has 17 parallels spread through various ancient schools. And it’s content stands firm against basic teachings.
What parallels? Chinese Agama transmitted 100s of years after the Buddha? Since MN 135 is the very type of doctrine that justifies political and social status quo, it was obviously very popular with the "authorities".
Can you provide any reference/s to prove MN 135's obvious very popularity with the "authorities" as a very type of doctrine that justifies political and social status quo?

Yes, Chinese Agamas are 100s years later. According to Ashoka's Rock-Edict XIII, King Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka in 260 BCE. That’s about 200+ years after the Buddha. The Pali Tipitaka was first committed to writing in the 1st century BCE at Aluvihara in Sri Lanka. And, that’s about 380 years after the Buddha. So, written text wise (that's all we have today), even the Middle Path is later... :tongue:
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
Regardless, it is indisputable that MN 135 is contrary to the Dhamma Refuge.
Can you elaborate clearly with references that the MN 135 is indisputably contrary to the Dhamma Refuge?
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
Do you know what the Dhamma Refuge is? Can you quote it? Thanks
Since you mentioned it first, define and quote it please.
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
StormBorn wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:53 pm
Now, if you say MN 111 is late, that’s totally fine since “0” parallels and the content fails horribly against multiple points of Dhamma.
Its ironic that you use "parallels" to argue against Sujato, who seems to be one of the recent inventors of the "parallels school". Why don't you start another thread where we can discuss whether or not "parallels" are a dodgy form of studying dhamma.
Dodgy? Yes. But need to look into case by case.

Sujato sometimes even uses later additions such as 32 marks of the Buddha to spread his feminist ideologies :tongue: :
Sujato says:
It is inescapable that, whatever the reading, according to the early texts the Buddha did not have “normal” genitals. And the only reading actually supported by a canonical text is that the Buddha was intersex, and his genitals looked like a woman’s.
Later, Sujato says:
Yes, I would agree that both the account of Mahapajapati’s going forth and the 32 marks are very likely to be later additions.
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
Also, start a thread where we can discuss MN 111 and whether or not it "fail terribly"?
An old thread by another member already exist: [MN 111] Fallacy of Anupadadhammavipassana while in a jhana. You can discuss there.

Thanks! :smile:
“Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one—himself.”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by DooDoot » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:44 am

StormBorn wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:42 am
Can you provide any reference/s to prove MN 135's obvious very popularity with the "authorities" as a very type of doctrine that justifies political and social status quo?
No. Of course not. However, similar to doctrines such as Divine Right of Kings, my speculation is logical & probable to me. Imho, it is a very careless and dangerous sutta; similar to the Hindu Caste System. Personally, I can't imagine the Buddha ever spoke it. Even more embarrassingly, it was reportedly spoken to a Baby Brahmin Boy. Personally, I prefer teachings taught to those who become Arahants. I might reply to whatever else you wrote later. I've been flat out fighting the NWO for the last five months who are attacking our local community and need to go to the ocean of Nibbana for some respite (after emailing another letter). One battle won and two to go. Onwards & upwards. Thunderbirds Are Go!

NWO :jedi:

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by AgarikaJ » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:44 am
No. Of course not. However, similar to doctrines such as Divine Right of Kings, my speculation is logical & probable to me. Imho, it is a very careless and dangerous sutta; similar to the Hindu Caste System. Personally, I can't imagine the Buddha ever spoke it. Even more embarrassingly, it was reportedly spoken to a Baby Brahmin Boy.
Are you sure you are talking about the right Sutta? Because in The Shorter Analysis of Action (MN 135), the Buddha talks to a student, actually one who can ask a direct and well-thought out question about the nature of Kamma. And I can find nothing careless in the answer of the Buddha.

See (quotes from there): https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Then Subha the student, Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race? For short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning people are to be seen. So what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race?"
Also see: https://suttacentral.net/mn135/en/sujato, which concurs that the boy was able to hold an argumentative conversation with the Buddha, even asking for further detail as the initial answer seemed too short-hand. I would not think that a 'boy' in the sense of a little child or even a baby would have been able to do this.

Going on, the paragraph of the Sutta talking about respect, I read this as meaning respect to whom it should be expressed, mainly the Sangha, but also to your elders, your parents, and yes, those in a social position above you.
Still, I see little glorification of a caste system here, merely an acceptance by the Buddha that human nature (with our inherent delusions and the resulting suffering) will not allow us to live in some kind of communist utopia, but that social strata are an indelible fact of life... if we insist to stay laypeople instead of entering monkhood.
"There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected, revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be honored.
It is to be noted, I think, that this advice was directed to somebody being tightly bound into such a stratified society, accepting it, so instead of encouraging pointless social revolution the Buddha instructed that it might be better to achieve a well-fulfilled, rounded and as wholesome as possible life, an advice he repeated to other laypeople and householders.
As such I think it significant that Subha the Student became nothing more than a dedicated lay follower, any higher path to enlightenment was not opened to him (unlike many other people who received the Dhamma from the Buddha, who became Arahants immediately).

Actually, the Buddha then goes further and criticizes blind acceptance of clerics or monks, instead they should always be scrutinized if they really live up to the ideal of leading a wholesome life. The inherent criticism of Brahmanism does not read subtle to me.
"There is the case where a woman or man when visiting a brahman or contemplative, does not ask: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'
At least, that is how I read MN 135, but maybe my sight of it is distorted by expecting the Buddha objecting to the caste structure of his time and expressing a more egalitarian view. Maybe you will illuminate where your interpretation comes to differ.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:54 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm

Are you sure you are talking about the right Sutta? Because in The Shorter Analysis of Action (MN 135), the Buddha talks to a student, actually one who can ask a direct and well-thought out question about the nature of Kamma. And I can find nothing careless in the answer of the Buddha.
you are right, I think. The term used in MN 135 and elsewhere is Māṇava, which means a young Brahmin

https://suttacentral.net/search?query=manava

which is consistent with young adulthood, and with being, as Thanissaro's translation has it, a student. He is certainly able to ask intelligent questions, and to experience an apparently genuine conversion such that he requests to be regarded henceforth as an upāsaka.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by DooDoot » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:36 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm
Are you sure you are talking about the right Sutta? Because in The Shorter Analysis of Action (MN 135), the Buddha talks to a student, actually one who can ask a direct and well-thought out question about the nature of Kamma. And I can find nothing careless in the answer of the Buddha.
Thanks for your reply but it doesn't make any salient point. It is merely opinion based. MN 135 is spoken to a Brahmin student who asked a worldly question. Also, to me, the question is not well-thought out at all. I personally know wealthy people and I think I know clearly why they are wealthy. I don't need to ask the Buddha why people are wealthy and why they are not. Note: I do have a Commerce degree from University. In other words, I think if I presented MN 135 in my university studies in economics & marketing, I would have been failed in those studies. :)
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm
It is to be noted, I think, that this advice was directed to somebody being tightly bound into such a stratified society, accepting it, so instead of encouraging pointless social revolution the Buddha instructed that it might be better to achieve a well-fulfilled, rounded and as wholesome as possible life, an advice he repeated to other laypeople and householders.
So the above appears to infer the Buddha told deliberate or "politically correct" lies. Regardless, the view above appears to clearly assert the teaching is only applicable to the Brahmin student rather than to all people. Regardless, teaching the truth does not promote pointless social revolution. :geek:

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by AgarikaJ » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:36 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm
Are you sure you are talking about the right Sutta? Because in The Shorter Analysis of Action (MN 135), the Buddha talks to a student, actually one who can ask a direct and well-thought out question about the nature of Kamma. And I can find nothing careless in the answer of the Buddha.
Thanks for your reply but it doesn't make any salient point. It is merely opinion based. MN 135 is spoken to a Brahmin student who asked a worldly question. Also, to me, the question is not well-thought out at all. I personally know wealthy people and I think I know clearly why they are wealthy. I don't need to ask the Buddha why people are wealthy and why they are not. Note: I do have a Commerce degree from University. In other words, I think if I presented MN 135 in my university studies in economics & marketing, I would have been failed in those studies. :)
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm
It is to be noted, I think, that this advice was directed to somebody being tightly bound into such a stratified society, accepting it, so instead of encouraging pointless social revolution the Buddha instructed that it might be better to achieve a well-fulfilled, rounded and as wholesome as possible life, an advice he repeated to other laypeople and householders.
So the above appears to infer the Buddha told deliberate or "politically correct" lies. Regardless, the view above appears to clearly assert the teaching is only applicable to the Brahmin student rather than to all people. Regardless, teaching the truth does not promote pointless social revolution. :geek:
I am very surprised by your answer, DooDot. As the question the young Brahmin asked, actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching. From my reading on here over the last few weeks, this is the question underlying many (if not the majority) of topics started on here, so it is certainly something even seasoned Practitioners grapple with.

I repeat it here once more and I would be very interested, where you think this not an important (if not the most important) question we all have to ask ourselves:
'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'
I also have issues with your mentioning of 'politically correct' "lies" (whatever those are, as there are only lies and not-lies). It is a well-regarded feature of the Buddha's teaching, that he formulated it for the direct benefit of increasing understanding within his direct audience.
See his Sermon to the Fire Wiorshippers, specific teachings for laypeople, stating of rules to monks and Dhamma talks on a much higher level directed at Arahants... never surpassing the competence of the listener to reach the next applicable step in the Noble Path (which would only lead to instinctive, deluded rejection of the message, instead of further engaging with it).

In this case, it is clear to see, the ability of a Brahmin (or at least this individual one) was deemed insufficient to give him a teaching that would allow him Stream Entry. But it still contained one of the most essential and difficult parts of the Teaching, one a layman might grapple with often and hard: the nature of Kamma.

So did the Buddha lie here? Did he suppress truth? Did he mislead this person? I say: not.

And does his answer not still benefit everybody? Or do you select your reading of the Suttas to only those he spoke directly to his highest disciples and disregard all others?

I must say that I found the answer of the Buddha to the specific question maybe the most illuminating I have read about the nature of Kamma and it is the best-fitting explanation for the world around me. Without knowing this answer, adhering to a Theravadan perspective would not be possible for me. :juggling:
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by AgarikaJ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:23 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm
Still, I see little glorification of a caste system here, merely an acceptance by the Buddha that human nature (with our inherent delusions and the resulting suffering) will not allow us to live in some kind of communist utopia, but that social strata are an indelible fact of life... if we insist to stay laypeople instead of entering monkhood.

...

At least, that is how I read MN 135, but maybe my sight of it is distorted by expecting the Buddha objecting to the caste structure of his time and expressing a more egalitarian view.
And he did object to castes where it was appropriate!

See: Saṃyutta Nikāya 7.9, With Bhāradvāja of Sundarika, https://suttacentral.net/sn7.9/en/sujato
Then Sundarika the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and said to him: "Sir, in what caste were you born?"
"Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct. For any wood can surely generate fire. A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family, is a thoroughbred checked by conscience."
Note though, that this particular Brahmin became a Stream Enterer upon hearing this Dhamma talk, so he was more receptive and able to accept this teaching and gain insight from it.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by DooDoot » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am
I am very surprised by your answer, DooDot. As the question the young Brahmin asked, actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching.
Sorry. But it doesn't. Its got 0% to do with the Buddha's teaching. There are scores of teachings attributed to the Buddha that contradict MN 135. MN 135 is a one-off teaching. As I posted many times on this thread, the Buddha taught about knowable actions that lead to certain results of heaven, hell, human, ghost, animal, etc. The Buddha did not teach about various worldly statuses in the human realm determined by past unknowable actions. AN 3.61, for example, was quoted many times by different posters on this thread.

I told you I have a University Degree in Commerce; in my worldly work, I managed a business (when I was young) and managed business clients when I was older. I have earned the wealth I have from financial investments. I know why people are wealthy and why they are not, which includes myself (because I know exactly the causes for the wealth I earned and the wealth I did not earn). Its got nothing to do with being generous in a past life. It makes 0% sense that people who were generous in a past life are greedy, corrupt and exploitative in the present life. Its non-sense. Its got nothing to do with the Buddha. If Jeff Bezos was generous in a past life, why is he paying his Amazon employees $15/hour in the present life and considered building cages for them to work in? If the major shareholders and directors of Apple Inc were generous in a past life, why do they manufacture in China paying workers $2 per day (whatever). Why do wealthy shareholders and directors of military companies such as Lockheed Martin earn great wealth from weapons and push immoral wars (such as the Iraq War) if they were generous in a past life? It makes no sense. Yet you claim it actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching; even though the real centre of the Buddha's teachings are about the corruption (vulgarness) of the world due to greed, hatred and delusion. People are most often wealthy because they are greedy rather than generous. They are wealthy because they delight in sensuality & narcissistic luxury. Some people are wealthy because they are simply smart. Many people are not wealthy because they are not so bright, have social impediments or are not interested. For example, I was never interested in money but when I decided to buy a house (at 40 years of age), I decided to invest the little money I had rather than borrow money. Despite not being interested in money, I used my intelligence to earn some money via investments. Nothing to do with past life generosity. I was always good with maths and numbers. MN 135 turns the dhamma into something very worldly; that have worldly wealth is a sign of virtue; which is contrary to most of reality. Yet you say the question the young Brahmin asked (but not the questions of Sariputta, etc) actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching. :roll:

James Tan
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by James Tan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:42 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am
I am very surprised by your answer, DooDot. As the question the young Brahmin asked, actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching.
Sorry. But it doesn't. Its got 0% to do with the Buddha's teaching. There are scores of teachings attributed to the Buddha that contradict MN 135. MN 135 is a one-off teaching. As I posted many times on this thread, the Buddha taught about knowable actions that lead to certain results of heaven, hell, human, ghost, animal, etc. The Buddha did not teach about various worldly statuses in the human realm determined by past unknowable actions. AN 3.61, for example, was quoted many times by different posters on this thread.

I told you I have a University Degree in Commerce; in my worldly work, I managed a business (when I was young) and managed business clients when I was older. I have earned the wealth I have from financial investments. I know why people are wealthy and why they are not, which includes myself (because I know exactly the causes for the wealth I earned and the wealth I did not earn). Its got nothing to do with being generous in a past life. It makes 0% sense that people who were generous in a past life are greedy, corrupt and exploitative in the present life. Its non-sense. Its got nothing to do with the Buddha. If Jeff Bezos was generous in a past life, why is he paying his Amazon employees $15/hour in the present life and considered building cages for them to work in? If the major shareholders and directors of Apple Inc were generous in a past life, why do they manufacture in China paying workers $2 per day (whatever). Why do wealthy shareholders and directors of military companies such as Lockheed Martin earn great wealth from weapons and push immoral wars (such as the Iraq War) if they were generous in a past life? It makes no sense. Yet you claim it actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching; even though the real centre of the Buddha's teachings are about the corruption (vulgarness) of the world due to greed, hatred and delusion. People are most often wealthy because they are greedy rather than generous. They are wealthy because they delight in sensuality & narcissistic luxury. Some people are wealthy because they are simply smart. Many people are not wealthy because they are not so bright, have social impediments or are not interested. For example, I was never interested in money but when I decided to buy a house (at 40 years of age), I decided to invest the little money I had rather than borrow money. Despite not being interested in money, I used my intelligence to earn some money via investments. Nothing to do with past life generosity. I was always good with maths and numbers. MN 135 turns the dhamma into something very worldly; that have worldly wealth is a sign of virtue; which is contrary to most of reality. Yet you say the question the young Brahmin asked (but not the questions of Sariputta, etc) actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching. :roll:
Hi doodoot ,

Why is a person born not so clever and not good in mathematics therefore not smart enough to invest and earn some money ?
Why is a person born deformed ?
Why is a person born intelligent but use their cleverness twist and turn , dishonest or fraudulent in conduct when in power and not apply their intelligence to do good for the humanity instead ?

If what you say make sense , is logic , I suppose we so called buddhist need not practice generosity although it is wholesome . It is not essential , not necessary , not to do with Buddha's teaching essence . What is the point ? Just practice the four foundation of mindfulness , 7FOE and 8RP which is the very core.
:reading:

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by AgarikaJ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:02 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am
I am very surprised by your answer, DooDot. As the question the young Brahmin asked, actually hits the direct center of the Buddha's teaching.
Sorry. But it doesn't. Its got 0% to do with the Buddha's teaching. There are scores of teachings attributed to the Buddha that contradict MN 135. MN 135 is a one-off teaching. As I posted many times on this thread, the Buddha taught about knowable actions that lead to certain results of heaven, hell, human, ghost, animal, etc. The Buddha did not teach about various worldly statuses in the human realm determined by past unknowable actions. AN 3.61, for example, was quoted many times by different posters on this thread.
I think I understand. Your answer seems to imply that you think that my reading of MN 135 is a fatalist one, eg that Kamma would be the only determining (and pre-deternining) factor for anybodies actions. I do not think this simplified teaching should be read that way.

The Tittha Sutta [AN 3.61] does indeed reject a fatalist view of Kamma (bold by me):
Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'
But the Tittha Sutta also rejects the viewpoint that there is no precondition at all to experiences and life situations. I feel you come dangerously close to that view:
Whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition?"
Reading MN135, a very simplified teaching, with a non-fatalist viewpoint in mind (that, while Kamma determines your rebirth and the fruit of previous and newly generated Kamma influences our current action, it is not the only influence) makes it clear that the two teaching do not stand in opposition to each other, but complement each other.

And it is undeniable that being able to enter the Noble Path to be able to recognize the Four Noble Truths, prerequisites determined by Kamma must be met, starting by being born in the human realm or higher.

By the way, there are quite a number of discourses on deeds and how the Kamma generated by them help or hinder the loosening of the fetters. Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.233 https://suttacentral.net/an4.233/en/sujato, Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.263 https://suttacentral.net/an4.263/en/sujato, AN 6.30 https://suttacentral.net/an6.39/en/sujato, etc.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by DNS » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:37 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 am
If Jeff Bezos was generous in a past life, why is he paying his Amazon employees $15/hour in the present life a
The U.S. federal minimum wage is only $7.25 or $7.50. He is paying them $15 which is double the minimum wage amount. It was seen as a generous move. I'm not saying he's a generous guy, I don't know much about him, but just wanted to clarify that the $15 per hour was not required on his part and by doing so, he's basically paying double the minimum wage rate.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Bhante Sujatos and karmic snobbery.

Post by DNS » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:28 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 am
I know why people are wealthy and why they are not, which includes myself (because I know exactly the causes for the wealth I earned and the wealth I did not earn). Its got nothing to do with being generous in a past life.
How do you know this? Do you have iddhi powers? It could be from past life good kamma.
Despite not being interested in money, I used my intelligence to earn some money via investments. Nothing to do with past life generosity. I was always good with maths and numbers. MN 135 turns the dhamma into something very worldly; that have worldly wealth is a sign of virtue; which is contrary to most of reality.
Again, how do you know this for sure, unless you have iddhi powers. Even those other examples you used; you don't account for the possibility that someone could have good kamma, became intelligent, wealthy, good at math, good at numbers, or other worldly fortune and then "took their kamma downward" so to speak by becoming greedy or bad in other ways.

And it is not just MN135. There are numerous places where the Buddha states this monk went to this direction, this monk over there, to this birth, to that birth and it was by his deeds.

There is the secular-Buddhist PC rejection of virtually all kamma-vipaka and the other extreme of the so-called "Asian-superstition" that virtually everything is kamma. I think there is a middle way espoused by the Buddha, that there are multiple potential causes and effects and kamma is just one of them and better not to speculate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bkb, cappuccino, gonflable, lostitude, mikenz66 and 98 guests