Dhammanando wrote:One question I have: do you happen to know the provenance of Ajahn Buddhadasa's conception of "dhamma as duty"? Is it something that he attempts to ground in the Suttas? Or is it based on a lexical analysis of the word 'dharma'?
Dhamma is the thing called " the Duty of all living things," that which they must do to survive both physically and mentally, both for their own sake and for that of society. Even when translating this word as "teaching," "learning" or "practice," the important understanding is still in its being the duty of salvation. Whenever duty is done, that is Dhamma practice.
The Dhamma in the temple and the Dhamma in the rice field is the very same Dhamma when they are carried out as rightful duties for genuine survival-salvation.
Element wrote:I would say by duty, Buddhadasa is deriving the word from Indian religion in general and from the Pali patti patti dhamma, meaning 'practise'.
The way to practice to solve such problems is called the Dharma. The actual problem of human beings is the problem of suffering, both in individuals and in societies. Sentient beings must suffer when doing wrong against the Law of Idappaccayatā in the moment of contact (phassa). I would like you to know this especially well, since it is the essence of the Dharma. Thus, I will repeat it. All sentient beings must suffer when doing wrong against the Law of Idappaccayatā in the moment of contact (phassa). Sentient beings will not suffer when doing right - that is, not doing wrong - according to this Law. This is especially true in the moment of phassa.
ABCs of Buddhism
gavesako wrote:I myself have often wondered why is it that the Thai teachers mention the word "duty" (naathee) so much in their talks, emphasising that such-and-such is our duty to do towards X. I would guess that because the Thai society is structured along so-called "patron-client" relationships, nobody can just swim in it as an independent entity: your identity is defined by your role or duty towards others above and below you.
What Buddhadasa probably tries to point out is that there is a higher and more impersonal principle called simply Dhamma or Nature, and that we should be looking primarily towards that as Buddha's followers.
There are two languages: Dhamma language and everyday language. Everyday language is based on physical things and on experiences accessible to the ordinary person.
By contrast, Dhamma language has to do with the mental world, with the intangible, non-physical world. In order to be able to speak and understand this Dhamma language, one must have gained insight into the mental world.
Appamatto ubho atthe adhiganhti pandito,
Ditthe dhamma ca yo attho, yo ca'ttho samparyiko.
Atthbhisamaydhro pandito ti pavuccati.
The wise and heedful person is familiar with both modes
of speaking: the meaning seen by ordinary people and
the meaning which they can't understand. One who is
fluent in the various modes of speaking is a wise person.
retrofuturist wrote:To what extent did Buddhadasa believe that the Theravada commentarial interpretations had gotten the application of the two truths with respect to the Buddha's teachings mixed up?
dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
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.
musāvādo na jāyatī ti
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)
Element wrote: The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination to laypeople or for the purpose of encouraging morality.
bodom_bad_boy wrote:The Buddha taught Dependent Origination to lay people.
clw_uk wrote:What was his teachings reguarding Kamma.
Also what was his views reguarding the devas, hungry-shades etc, did he take them to be objective beings or just simply mental states?
Users browsing this forum: WindDancer and 80 guests