Old film of Ajahn Buddhadasa and lay devotees

[DooDoot]

I guess this film is from the early 1970s. At 2:15 there appears to be a Western monk, who might be either Rod Bucknell or probably Christopher Titmus. Its Asalha Puja and the laypeople go for a trek through the forest. Different time, different place, different culture. Sabbe dhamma anicca.

[AgarikaJ]

[Manopubbangama]

What was Buddhadasa's view on Rebirth?

And of the Dhamma as a uniquely capable religion of leading to Nibanna?

Just curious here.

[DooDoot]

And of the Dhamma as a uniquely capable religion of leading to Nibanna?

Ajahn Buddhadasa was a very strong teacher of Nibbana. In fact, he was nearly disrobed for saying the common views about Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha are like mountains obstructing the way to Nibbana. You can read a teaching about Nibbana, here: Nibbāna for Everyone

What was Buddhadasa's view on Rebirth?

Buddhadasa taught "birth" ("jati") refers to the arise of the idea of "self" and therefore did not teach about post-mortem rebirth. There are many books on this, such as Anatta & Rebirth, Heartwood from the Bo Tree and Another Kind of Birth:

in Dharma language birth refers to a mental event arising our of ignorance, craving, and clinging. Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching.

The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Bhik ... _Birth.htm

[Manopubbangama]

And of the Dhamma as a uniquely capable religion of leading to Nibanna?

Ajahn Buddhadasa was a very strong teacher of Nibbana. In fact, he was nearly disrobed for saying the common views about Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha are like mountains obstructing the way to Nibbana. You can read a teaching about Nibbana, here: Nibbāna for Everyone

That wasn't my question, though.

I asked what he thought about the Pali Canon as a UNIQUE religion that is capable of leading to Nibanna?

That is, in this cyclical Samsara, through the long round of rebirths, as taught by the Buddha, final deliverance based on the teaching of the triple refuge as a unique vehicle?

So in other words, can other religious vehicles lead to Nibanna according to Buddhadasa?

Can Islamic jihad lead to Nibanna occording to his teaching?


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html


Is this 'blind turtle' reborn ever single second because to me it sounds like it takes quite a bit longer than that.

[DooDoot]

I asked what he thought about the Pali Canon as a UNIQUE religion that is capable of leading to Nibanna? So in other words, can other religious vehicles lead to Nibanna according to Buddhadasa?

Sometimes he taught only Buddhism can lead to Nibbana. Other times, he taught interfaith non-sense such as the Kingdom of God is Nibbana; although he generally defined the Kingdom of God in Buddhist terms as being the end of selfing or "voidness" ("sunnata"). I'll try to find some quotes for you:

Likewise in this sense Buddhism is a full-fledged religion, i.e. it is a perfect
way of practice which when followed completely binds man to the state in which he knows of no
suffering and which is variously named Nibbana, Parama-Dhamma, the Deathless, etc. having the
same meaning as “Kingdom of God.”

As for Christians they would perhaps be quite unwilling use the term “Nibbana” so common
to the Buddha’s teaching for what they call “Salvation.” And they would try to argue that the two,
Nibbana and Salvation, cannot be the same thing is any respect. They may insist for instance that
Salvation is only to be granted by the grace of God and not through the practice of the noble
Eightfold path of Buddhism. But I wish to point out that the Noble Eightfold path is what is called
“Dhamma” and Dhamma is nothing but God.

http://www.thaicrc.com/gsdl/collect/MIS ... r/1928.pdf

I'd like to ask if in the Kingdom of God, or in whatever place God is, whether according to the scriptures of Christianity or any other religion, when we're with God can hunger and desire stop? If the Kingdom of God is the end of hunger and craving, then it's the same thing as Buddhism teaches: nibbana, or the happiness that is beyond the world because hunger has ended. But if we understand the Kingdom of God differently, if it is a place where we still hunger, then Buddhism isn't interested. Endless desire for better and better things to take as one's own is not the goal of Buddhism. Buddhism takes the fork in the road that leads beyond the world.

Those of you who are Christians or who have read the Bible will be familiar with the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that appears at the beginning of Genesis. It tells how God forbade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He warned them that they would die if they did not obey. If you understand the meaning of this passage, you will understand the core of Buddhism. When there is no knowledge of good and evil, we can't attach to them, we're void and free of dukkha. Once we know about good and evil, we attach to them and must suffer dukkha. The fruit of that tree is this attachment to good and evil. This causes dukkha and dukkha is death, spiritual death.

Adam's children, down through the ages to us, carry this burden of knowing good and evil, the burden of the self that attaches to good and evil and suffers spiritual death. We identify things as good and attach to them. We identify things as bad and detach from them. We are trapped in worldly conditions by our dualistic obsession with good and bad. This is the death of which God warned. Will you heed his warning?

Now what are we who have inherited this problem going to do about it? To continue running after the satisfaction of our hunger for "the best" is simply to perpetuate this cycle of birth and death. Thus, Buddhism isn't interested in any of the realm of lokiya-sukha, of good, better, and best. The Buddhist solution is to be above good and evil to be void.

Please understand that "the best" is not the highest thing. If you talk about God as the supreme good, "Buddhists won't be able to accept your words. To say that God, the highest thing in the universe, is the collection of everything good or the perfection of good is to limit God. The Supreme Thing, within dualistic conditions. Buddhists cannot accept this. The God of the Bible himself said that if we know good and evil we must die.

If you say, however, that God -if we choose to use this word - is beyond good and evil, then Buddhists can agree. In Buddhism, the goal is to transcend both good and evil, and realize voidness - to be void of "I", "me", "mine", and "myself". If we don't know good and evil, we can't attach to them and there is no dukkha. Or, if we know good and evil but still don't attach to them, then there is no dukkha just the same. Thus, the highest point for humanity is beyond good.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Bhikk ... Hunger.htm

To illustrate the importance of language, let us consider the
following example. Ordinary, ignorant worldly people are under the
impression that there is this religion and that religion, and that
these religions are different, so different that they're opposed to
each other. Such people speak of "Christianity," "Islam," "Buddhism,"
"Hinduism," "Sikhism," and so on, and consider these religions to be
different, separate, and incompatible. These people think and speak
according to their personal feelings and thus turn the religions into
enemies. Because of this mentality, there come to exist different
religions which are hostilely opposed to each other.

Those who have penetrated to the essential nature of religion
will regard all religions as being the same. Although they may say
there is Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam, or whatever, they will also
say that all religions are inwardly the same. However, those who have
penetrated to the highest understanding of Dhamma will feel that the
thing called "religion" doesn't exist after all. There is no
Buddhism; there is no Christianity; there is no Islam. How can they
be the same or in conflict when they don't even exist? It just
isn't possible. Thus, the phrase "No religion!" is actually
Dhamma language of the highest level. Whether it will be understood
or not is something else, depending upon the listener, and has
nothing to do with the truth or with religion.

I'd like to give a simple example of people language, the
language of materialism. "Water" will suffice. A person who don't
know much about even the simplest things thinks that there are many
different kinds of water. They view these various kinds of water as
if they have nothing in common. They distinguish rain-water,
well-water, underground-water, canal-water, swamp-water, ditch-water,
gutter-water, sewer-water, toilet-water, urine, diarrhea, and many
other kinds of water from each other. Average people will insist that
these waters are completely different, because such people take
external appearances as their criteria.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ORELIG.HTM

That is, in this cyclical Samsara, through the long round of rebirths, as taught by the Buddha, final deliverance based on the teaching of the triple refuge as a unique vehicle?

I think Buddhadasa would argue you personally do not understand Buddhism if you believe a "self" has been rebirthed through long rounds of rebirths and therefore "you" are missing the boat to Nibbana. As for my opinion, I would say if Nibbana has not been realised, the idea the Buddha's teaching offer a "unique" path is just superstition.

[Manopubbangama]

I asked what he thought about the Pali Canon as a UNIQUE religion that is capable of leading to Nibanna? So in other words, can other religious vehicles lead to Nibanna according to Buddhadasa?

Sometimes he taught only Buddhism can lead to Nibbana. Other times, he taught interfaith non-sense such as the Kingdom of God is Nibbana;

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ORELIG.HTM[/i]

That is, in this cyclical Samsara, through the long round of rebirths, as taught by the Buddha, final deliverance based on the teaching of the triple refuge as a unique vehicle?

I think Buddhadasa would argue you personally do not understand Buddhism if you believe a "self" has been rebirthed through the long round of rebirths and therefore "you" are missing the boat to Nibbana.

Regarding first quote, I agree that he taught doctrines that are not logically coherent and therefore, nonsense.

Regarding second quote, I think the Buddha would agree with that, but I don't think that is the real doctrine of Buddhadasa; I think his doctrine is something like socialist materialistic atheism; and that conciousness starts at birth and ends at death in a single life cycle and there is no kamma, no cause and effect beyond that.

[DooDoot]

Regarding first quote, I agree that he taught doctrines that are not logically coherent and therefore, nonsense.

I think Buddhadasa was not so attached to dogma and was just challenging or inspiring people with his interfaith ideas; particularly Western people.

Regarding second quote, I think the Buddha would agree with that, but I don't think that is the real doctrine of Buddhadasa; I think his doctrine is something like socialist materialistic atheism; and that consciousness starts at birth and ends at death in a single life cycle and there is no kamma, no cause and effect beyond that.

Obviously, the comment above is ridiculous because:

1. The Buddha never taught "socialism" was a wrong view.

2. The Buddha never taught about "materialism".

2a. Since Buddhadasa taught "birth" and "rebirth" are mental and not physical, he cannot be a "materialist".

3. The Buddha never taught "atheism" was a wrong view.

4. Buddhadasa never denied kamma, per this essay: Kamma in Buddhism and also KARMA IN THE PALI SUTTAS
.

5. I don't recall the Buddha ever teaching consciousness begins without sense bases.

Everything you posted appears unrelated to Buddhism and appear to be just Western ideas, it seems.

So you are saying right view in Buddhism is to be a "theist"?

[Manopubbangama]

Regarding first quote, I agree that he taught doctrines that are not logically coherent and therefore, nonsense.

I think, unlike the impression I gain from your posts, Buddhadasa was not so attached to dogma and was just challenging or inspiring people with his interfaith ideas; particularly Western people.

I'm not quite sure how logical inconsistency challenges anyone, exactly, usually arguments that are holistically coherent are far more challenging to deeply-held ideas.

Personally, if I hear that 2+2=5 and than get called 'dogmatic' for not agreeing, I will politely nod my head and than not give that person my complete lack of skepticism in the future.

[DooDoot]

I'm not quite sure how logical inconsistency challenges anyone, exactly, usually arguments that are holistically coherent are far more challenging to deeply-held ideas.

For me, the above is not a reasonable response to a Buddhist discussion & just sounds like Western style rhetoric. From a Buddhist perspective, it appears your baseless unsubstantiated ideas were defeated. It seems most of what you accused Buddhadasa of actually is your own errors of understanding. For example, it seems your ideas are "materialist" because you believe "rebirth" is material. Personally, I have no hesitation in faulting any errors of Buddhadasa. Personally, I have no allegiance or attachment to Buddhadasa. But I provide a well-reasoned substantiated argument. But, to me, your arguments had no basis or reference to the teachings of the Buddha. For example, in SN 22.81, the Buddha definitely said the idea of "self" is something "born" ("jati") from ignorance & craving, which is exactly what Ajahn Buddhadasa taught. Therefore, based at least on SN 22.81, I think it is not proper to accuse Ajahn Buddhadasa of some type of heresy. Buddhadasa's view seemed to have sutta support.

, I will politely nod my head and than not give that person my complete lack of skepticism in the future.

You are free to superstitiously believe (without evidence) the Noble Eightfold Path leads to Nibbana. If you have not actually realised Nibbana then, imo, to believe in the entire Sutta Pitaka is just superstition. I personally find it quite illogical to claim the Buddha taught a unique path to Nibbana when the reality of Nibbana is not even known. Its no different to claiming Jesus taught a unique path to "God". If "God" is not known and "Nibbana" is not known then, to me, both are equally superstitious.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Is this 'blind turtle' reborn ever single second because to me it sounds like it takes quite a bit longer than that.

To me, the above does not appear to be Buddha-Dhamma but only your personal ideas. Like Christians that read the Bible, it seems your mind is imagining all kinds of things from reading SN 56.48. The meaning of the blind turtle appears unambiguously described in SN 56.47. It appears you chose the wrong sutta that appeals to the defilements of becoming & self that hinder Nibbana. Do you believe a "self" attains Nibbana?

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.

SN 56.47

Buddhadasa taught the "human state" is to have a "high mind" free from suffering, which seems to be what SN 56.47 is teaching because SN 56.47 appears to be straightforwardly saying the human state is the realisation of the Four Noble Truths:

What are Human Beings?

It is correct and proper that each of you has come here to
undertake the third kind of education: how to be a human
being without any problems, how to be free of dukkha. It
is good that you have come here and are interested in this
topic. In short, use this opportunity to learn what it takes
to be a human being.

If someone tells you that you’re not yet human, please
don’t get angry and please don’t feel sad. First, you must
look and see what it means to be human. So let’s take a
look at “manusaya,” the Pali word for human being. This
is a very good word for it has a very useful meaning.
Manusaya means “lofty-minded one,” a mind high enough
to be above all problems. Problems are like flood waters,
but they can’t flood the lofty mind. When one’s mind is
elevated to a high level, then we can say that one is a
manusaya. The speaker isn’t sure where the English word
“human being” comes from. Our guess is that it must
mean “high-minded,” also. “Man” is probably related to
mana (mind) and “hu” ought to mean “high.” So, human
ought to mean “high-minded.”

https://archive.org/stream/BuddhadasaBh ... e_djvu.txt

While I am not claiming or asserting Ajahn Buddhadasa was correct, I am asserting his ideas are far better substantiated than your Western ideas of materialism and atheism.

[Manopubbangama]

I'm not going to respond in kind to the straw-man and ad hominum stuff, but its fine that its there.

I actually like Buddhadasa and find nothing inherently wrong with socialist-hermeneutics, but his views don't really seem to mesh very well with the single taste of the Dhamma, so while I think he was a smart fellow I humbly disagree with his views and his attempts to reconcile the Dhamma with 19th century European political idealism.

The hermeneutics employed against the Blind turtle parable is fine if we ignore the specific time frames referenced in the sutta which contradict Buddhadasa, that being said, it breaks down when we examine other parts of the Pali Canon:

"When he says thus: 'For I have seen that a person abstained from killing living beings here... had right view. I saw that on the dissolution of the body after death, he had reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world,' I concede that to him.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .nymo.html

It takes far more linguistic juggling to reinterpret this statement from the traditional Theravadin view of rebirth.

Regarding the relationship of Rebirth to the 8 Noble Path, this Sutta offers a very powerful correlation:

"Because there actually is causality, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no causality' is his wrong view. Because there actually is causality, when he is resolved that 'There is no causality,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is causality, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no causality,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is causality, when he says that 'There is no causality,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who teach causality. Because there actually is causality, when he persuades another that 'There is no causality,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

"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.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .than.html

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.

To anyone who would believe that the straw man that those of us who happen to reject Buddhadasa's ideas are somehow materialist atheists would do well to reflect on the Traditional Theravadin interpretation of the doctrine of rebirth: https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha058.htm if this is somehow materialist atheism or Western style rhetoric than how was the doctrine created thousands of years before said ideas came into existence?

If one wishes to continue the conversation regarding the idea of rebirth and Buddhadasa's admittedly heterodox views on it, one will have to contend with the entire Theravadin Tradition's view on rebirth, which are Sutta-inspired and don't mesh with Buddhadasa's views in the least bit.

Regarding the idea that 'all religions are the same' it seems to be agreed that this is basically a lie, but in my opinion this idea is not very logically coherent, or well thought-out.

Again, I like Buddhadasa, but as everyone appears to agree that he taught plenty of nonsense, I don't place his teachings on the same level as Mahasi and Ledi Sayadaw, for example, who never uttered a single lie in their writings.

The onus is not on Theravadins to defend Theravada from Buddhadasa, but on Buddhadasa and his followers to reconcile their heterodox views with Theravada, unless of course, they wish to start a new religion.

[DooDoot]

'm not going to respond in kind to the straw-man and ad hominum stuff, but its fine that its there.

Again, this reply is unrelated to Buddhism but is just Western ideas.

but his views don't really seem to mesh very well with the single taste of the Dhamma

So you are saying his ideas about "void of I-making & my-making" as "Nibbana" are not the taste of Dhamma?

so while I think he was a smart fellow I humbly disagree with his views and his attempts to reconcile the Dhamma with 19th century European political idealism.

Sila is an aspect of Dhamma. The suttas have teachings related to politics and economics.

The hermeneutics employed against the Blind turtle parable is fine if we ignore the specific time frames referenced in the sutta which contradict Buddhadasa, that being said, it breaks down when we examine other parts of the Pali Canon

No. The blind turtle suttas is not necessarily related to the other suttas you quoted. I think your ideas about the blind turtle were definitely defeated.

"When he says thus: 'For I have seen that a person abstained from killing living beings here... had right view. I saw that on the dissolution of the body after death, he had reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world,' I concede that to him.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .nymo.html

Again, the above is just your personal interpretation of your own ideas.

It takes far more linguistic juggling to reinterpret this statement from the traditional Theravadin view of rebirth.

Not at all. Its child's play.

Regarding the relationship of Rebirth to the 8 Noble Path, this Sutta offers a very powerful correlation:

No. Anything you suggest cannot be "powerful" because the Buddha never said mundane dhamma is "powerful". The Buddha said the "five powers" include "supramundane wisdom". About your ideas, Buddhadasa appeared to call you a "materialist":

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
dense that they are blind to everything but material things.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ORELIG.HTM

"Because there actually is causality, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no causality' is his wrong view. Because there actually is causality, when he is resolved that 'There is no causality,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is causality, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no causality,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is causality, when he says that 'There is no causality,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who teach causality. Because there actually is causality, when he persuades another that 'There is no causality,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

Buddhadasa did not deny casuality. Again, your comments are irrelevant and just show misunderstanding.

"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.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn ... .than.html

MN 60 is the defiled mundane right view described in MN 117. Regardless, there is nothing above in the Pali that says there is life after the termination of life. The word "marana" does not necessarily mean "physical death" according to the suttas. Again, as Buddhadasa said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
dense that they are blind to everything but material things.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ORELIG.HTM

Buddhadasa spoke often about the "realms" and "death" in this quote:

Now let's consider the word "death". Death in everyday language means that event which necessitates putting something in a coffin and cremating or burying it. But in Dhamma language, the word "death" refers to the cessation of the idea mentioned just a moment ago, the idea of "I" or "me". The [traumatic] ceasing of this idea is what is meant by "death'' in Dhamma language

Now let us direct our gaze downwards. Let us look at the "four woeful states" (apaya). The woeful states are the nether worlds. Normally four of them are recognized: hell (naraka), the realm of the beasts (tiracchana), the realm of the hungry ghosts (peta), and the realm of the frightened ghosts (asura or asuraka.gif (845 bytes)ya). These four as a group are called the "four woeful states''. They are vividly depicted in temple murals. Hell, the beasts, the hungry ghosts, and the asuras are all depicted according to traditional beliefs, which means all four are thought to apply only after death. In other words, the four woeful states as understood in everyday language are interpreted materialistically. The denizens of hell, the beasts, and so on are thought of as actual lowly, "flesh and blood" creatures.

In everyday language, hell is a region under the earth. It is ruled over by the god of death, who carries off people and subjects them to all sorts of punishments. It is a place where one may go after death. Contrast this with hell as understood in Dhamma language. Here hell is anxiety, anxiety which burns us just like a fire. Whenever anxiety afflicts us, burning us up like a fire, then we are in hell, the hell of Dhamma language. Anyone who roasts himself with anxiety, just as he might burn himself with fire, is said to fall into hell in that same moment. And just as anxiety is of various kinds, so we recognize various kinds of hells corresponding to them.

Now to the realm of beasts (tiraccha.gif (845 bytes)na). Birth as a beast means in everyday language actual physical birth as a pig, a dog, or some other actual animal, Rebirth after death as some kind of lower animal is the everyday meaning of rebirth into the realm of the beasts. In Dhamma language, it has a different meaning. When one is stupid, just like a dumb animal, then at that moment one is born into the realm of beasts. It happens right here and now. One may be born as a beast many times over in a single day. So in Dhamma language, birth as a beast means stupidity.

The term "hungry ghost" (peta) in everyday language refers to a creature supposed to have a tiny mouth and an enormous belly. It can never manage to eat enough and so is chronically hungry. This is another possible form in which we may be reborn after death. These are the hungry ghosts of everyday language. The hungry ghosts of Dhamma language are purely mental states. Ambition based on craving, worry based on craving-to be afflicted with these is to be born a hungry ghost. These symptoms are just like those that result from having a mouth the size of a needle's eye and a belly the size of a mountain. Anyone suffering from an intense craving, a pathological thirst, anyone who worries and frets excessively, has the same symptoms as a hungry ghost. Such a person can be said to have been reborn a hungry ghost right here and now. It is not something that happens only after death.

Now to the asura or frightened ghosts. In everyday language, an asura is a kind of invisible being. It goes around haunting and spooking, but is too afraid to show itself. In Dhamma language, the word "asura" refers to fear in the mind of a human being. To be reborn as an asura, it is not necessary for the body to die. Whenever one is afraid, one is simultaneously reborn an asura. To be afraid without good reason, to be excessively fearful, to be superstitiously afraid of certain harmless creatures�this is what it is to be reborn as an asura. Some people are afraid of doing good. Some are afraid that if they attain nibba.gif (845 bytes)na, life will lose all its flavour and be unbearably dull. Some people do have this kind of fear of nibba.gif (845 bytes)na. To be afflicted with unjustified fear of this kind is to be reborn as an asura right here and now.

The are the four woeful states as understood in Dhamma language. They are rather different from the woeful states of everyday language. Now there is a point worth thinking about in connection with this. If we don't fall into the woeful states of Dhamma language, then we are sure not to fall into the woeful states of everyday language. For instance, if we avoid making the mistakes that lead to affliction with anxiety, then we avoid falling into hell in this life. At the same time, we need have no fear of falling into hell in some later lifetime after death. Again, if we avoid being stupid like the beasts, ravenous like the hungry ghosts, and frightened like the asura, then we are free of the kinds of unskillful attitudes that might cause us to be reborn after death as beasts, hungry ghosts, or asura.

So it behoves us to interest ourselves only in these woeful states that we are in danger of experiencing right here and now. The kind that we may experience after death can be put aside. There is no need for us to concern ourselves with them. If we avoid right here and now the hungry ghosts and other Woeful states as understood in Dhamma language, then no matter how we die, we are certain not to fall into the woeful states of everyday language. If we live and practice properly, we avoid falling into the woeful states here and now, and we are certain not to fall into the woeful states that are supposed to follow death.

Most people recognize that heaven and hell are simply states of mind. Why, then, are they so foolish as to misunderstand the meaning of the four woeful states, which are so much a part of life? True enough, the heaven and hell of everyday language are external realms�though don't ask me where�and they are attained after death; but the heaven and hell of Dhamma language are to be found in the mind and may occur at any time, depending on one's mental make-up. This is how the woeful states of Dhamma language differ from those of everyday language.

https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Truth/ ... nguage.htm

The single taste of the Dhamma is both logically coherent and refreshing

No. The Buddha did not teach about a single taste of Dhamma as you are.

1. When the Buddha said the Dhamma has one taste, he was referring to SUPRAMUNDANE DHAMMA.

2. However, in MN 117, the Buddha said there were two sorts of right view, SUPRAMUNDANE and DEFILED.

3. The views you are posting are DEFILED MUNDANE views and are not related to the "one taste".

4. It is Buddhadasa that has one taste.

The so while I am indeed not an arahant

Definitely, well-spoken.

, I have found that the flavor of the Dhamma is all the same,

No. Please take care with your speech. It is obvious by your posting the taste or flavour of SUNNATA is not apparent.

but Buddhadasa's ideas have a different taste.

Yes, they have a different taste. Your posts have the taste of ATTA and Buddhadasa as the taste of ANATTA & SUNNATA.

To anyone who would believe that the straw man that those of us who happen to reject Buddhadasa's ideas are somehow materialist atheists

But your ideas appear to be both materialism (as Buddhadasa said) and theism (believing in self as god).

would do well to reflect on the Traditional Theravadin interpretation of the doctrine of rebirth:

Buddhaghosa was obviously not enlightened, given he dedicated his writings for this rebirth in a Brahma heaven.

If one wishes to continue the conversation regarding the idea of rebirth and Buddhadasa's admittedly heterodox views on it, one will have to contend with the entire Theravadin Tradition's view on rebirth, which are Sutta-inspired and don't mesh with Buddhadasa's views in the least bit.

No. The suttas often refer to the realms as mere mental states; such as in the Blind Turtle sutta. But you seem to be in denial here; clinging to "tradition"; which the Buddha compared to a string of blind men.

Regarding the idea that 'all religions are the same' it seems to be agreed that this is basically a lie, but in my opinion this idea is not very logically coherent, or well thought-out.

Wrong. It is not Buddhadasa who was not well thought out but your good self that did not read the quotes clearly. Buddhadasa said all religions were emptiness. This is actually true according to Buddhism.

Again, I like Buddhadasa

Again, please take care with your speech and reflect on the 4th precept

, but as everyone appears to agree that he taught plenty of nonsense,

No. Since I have intimate knowledge of his teachings; the only non-sense he taught was about other religions. His views of the Buddha-Dhamma were not non-sense.

I don't place his teachings on the same level as Mahasi and Ledi Sayadaw, for example, who never uttered a single lie in their writings.

Big claim about the Sayadaws. Why don't you post some of their teachings for me to critique. Regardless, where you place teachers is irrelevant. Since you admitted you are not an arahant, you are not in a position to assess or judge teachers.

The onus is not on Theravadins to defend Theravada from Buddhadasa, but on Buddhadasa and his followers to reconcile their heterodox views with Theravada, unless of course, they wish to start a new religion.

Buddhadasa was a highly decorated monk in Thailand; who once was the chief monk of Southern Thailand and represented Thailand at the 6th Buddhist Council in Rangoon. Unfortunately, your posts here are only your opinions and, imo, are contrary to Buddha-Dhamma.

To end, allow me to quote MN 117, to show your ideas are definitely not the "one taste of liberation" the Buddha taught. Since your posts are embracing a materialistic interpretation of "rebirth" (which is bondage), obviously your posts are not what the Buddha called the "one taste of freedom".

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions (bondage)? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously arisen beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

To repeat: the Buddha said the "one taste" is the "taste of freedom". But you appear to be saying the "one taste" is the "taste of rebirth (samsara)".

Just as the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, so too, this Dhamma and discipline has but one taste, the taste of liberation.

https://suttacentral.net/an8.19/en/bodhi

[Manopubbangama]

I think we have uncovered all that needs to be uncovered here regarding the fierce attachment that is held to the particular worldview of "dharmic-socialism," apparently a construct that came out of the 1960s, as well as the rational thinking patterns it engenders.

It is also revealing as to how Buddadhasa's special views are received as they are in the Theravadin world, that is, as basically nonsense.

[DooDoot]

I think we have uncovered all that needs to be uncovered here

I think I covered everything (where as I think you wrote many very superficial unsubstantiated comments & allegations).

regarding the fierce attachment that is held to the particular worldview of "dharmic-socialism," apparently a construct that came out of the 1960s.

I doubt Buddhadasa was fiercely attached to his idea of "dharmic-socialism". When I lived in his monastery for 3 years when he was alive, I rarely heard him talk about it. Regardless, it is best you make some quotes from his book "dharmic-socialism" (because its a book i never read).

The insults ultimately reflective of those who hold such special views are indeed revealing.

Again, unrelated to Buddhism and just sounds like Western Cultural Marxism. If you re-read your posts, it will be found it was you that starting name-calling Buddhadasa as "illogical", "materialistic", "atheist", etc.

It is also revealing as to why Buddadhasa's special views are so poorly received by the majority in the Theravadin world, and it is probably a positive thing that this has been documented.

Actually, Buddhadasa is highly revered by many Western monks. For example, the Ajahn Sumedho and his monks recently gave talks in Buddhadasa's honor. Regardless, the bottom line is the majority in the Theravadin world is not enlightened. What the majority think is irrelevant.



Moderator note: Ad hominem comments removed.

[Manopubbangama]

I lived in his monastery for 3 years when he was alive,

Excellent, I knew we would uncover the dog in this fight.

How did Buddhadasa teach his acolytes to deal with their anger in those three years, exactly?

How are critics of Buddhadasa treated in his monastery?