Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Sutra Club: Tittha Sutta
zombiegirl
beating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wasteland Veteran
in Philosophy
Broken into four short parts:
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (1)
(The well known allegory of the blind men and the elephant. Comparison between the lore in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, and Sufi lore. Other commentary.)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (2)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (3)
(The well known allegory of the arrow.)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (1)
(The well known allegory of the blind men and the elephant. Comparison between the lore in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, and Sufi lore. Other commentary.)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (2)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (3)
(The well known allegory of the arrow.)
4
Comments
I don't understand why a fatalist (my paraphrase or assessment) would not have a desire to act as they should and not act as they shouldn't. The reason would be that if the past conditions the present then the present conditions the past. Is he like refuting 'choiceless awareness'?
I just made a thread asking for help finding a sutta, it happened to be that very one. I find that a common view in TB even among learned lamas and geshes to be that everything that happens is a result of karma. This view has never sat well with me mainly because of the reasons the Buddha gives here. Its unclear to me though what else the Buddha thinks acts as a cause for what happens to us from this sutta alone, probably there are explanations elsewhere.
The way I understand what the Buddha is saying, not only in regards to karma but also in the following paragraphs in relation to an omnipotent creator and no causes and conditions, is that what we cultivate in the present under these philosophies are also only products of causes outside of our control and so we can't really create anything it is already dictated.
I have my own thoughts on free will that I won't get into here to try and keep the discussion on the sutta.
. . . a sort of co-counselling or peer review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-counselling
We can have confidence in our Buddhahood pulling us into an inevitable future. In other words karma can come from our attainment . . .
Karma is something we can constantly let go of. Failure is an option, let it go. Success is irrelevant, let it go. Now - What?
Ah those sense media are part of the 12 links or Nidanas and ignorance is the first, and sankhara/fabrications the second. I would expect that fabrication had to do with karma and ultimately leading to birth and death. I believe karma is illusory even so as birth is illusory. Indeed if there is no notion of birth and death it is hard for me to see karma because I think of a being always in connection with karma.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas?o=2800&qsrc=999
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all just stating it from my point of view.
I read the other suttas in the OP and I wonder if this discussion doesn't fall under those: Studying the Pali canon makes me feel like an ignorant padwan again. :dunce:
from Buddhism Connect an emailing of teacher and student discussions given by Lama Shenpen Hookham.
In each of the three numbered stories, the common theme is that 'contemplatives' are arguing about one thing or another.
In (1) it is about the shortsightedness of viewing one aspect of an elephant and the dhamma. The Buddha doesn't comment on the views but says: In (2) the contemplatives argue about the self and the cosmos and the dhamma. The Buddha doesn't comment on the views but instead says: In (3) the contemplatives are still arguing about the self and the cosmos and the dhamma. The Buddha doesn't comment on the views but instead says: After reading these, when you then go back to the unnumbered section, it seems that instead of answering some of the raised questions, the Buddha is bringing attention to those things learned by experience and the core teachings, not what a lot of people would call the 'imponderables'... imponderables being things that have no provable answer, things that rely on views and opinion, rather than knowledge gained by practical experience.
What is the Buddha's central concern here? "When one falls back on [INSERT DOCTRINE HERE] as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected."
What the Buddha keeps coming back to is placing the responsibility for action upon oneself. By looking for external reasons, one remains "stuck in inaction." The Buddha is less interested in the notion of Truth with a capital "T"--but with "what is beneficial and what is harmful." The Buddha is less concerned with true or false "information" and more concerned with method.
The problem with arguing about what "the Truth" really is is that it is by nature one-sided, concerned with "true," false," "objective," "subjective," "absolute," "relative," "good," evil," and a whole host of other metaphysical problems that actually lead one further away from the problem of dukkha. It actually exacerbates the problem.
Bearing this in mind, I think this helps to contextualize when the Buddha himself speaks about truth or good in relation to the Buddhadharma.
Anyway, something else to consider. I hope to write more tomorrow evening when I have more time!
On the unnumbered section, I think one thing the Buddha is trying to point out is the qualities that makes one able to "righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative". He seems to say that a true contemplative is one who is concerned with moral conduct, ie. discerning what is right and wrong. Apart from that, a true contemplative is also one who concerns himself with trying to "pin down as truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done" which I think means obtaining wisdom.
Another thing I think the Buddha is doing is to distinguish his teachings to the teachings of the three sectarian guilds on two important grounds.
His main criticisms of the sectarian guilds are that their views cause them to: (1) be "stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction" and (2) "dwell bewildered and unprotected" because they "can't pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done".
So I think the point he is trying to make is that his teachings leads one to have the will and effort to discern "[what] should be done; [what] shouldn't be done". In addition, his teachings will also lead one to be able to "pin down as truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done". So the first element seems to be concerned with a desire to discern what is moral conduct as the Buddha refers to killing, stealing, lying, etc. The second element seems to be concerned with the ability to obtain wisdom (ie. pin down truth and reality) upon which one uses to discern what should or shouldn't be done as the Buddha also specifically refers to a person who is "a holder of wrong views".
So I think the selection of the Dhamma that the Buddha declares in the unnumbered section of the Suttra points to the main theme that there are causes and effects and that these causes and effects are not merely dependent on external factors. Thus we should be concerned with discerning what should be done and what shouldn't be done. And thus if one should be concerned with that, then one should also "pin down as truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done". For this, the Buddha declares that it is possible to reach cessation of ignorance through the noble eightfold path. Therefore, this implies that through practicing the noble eightfold path, one will be able to "pin down the truth and reality of what should and shouldn't be done".
Regarding the numbered sections of the Suttra, one theme that runs across all three is the Buddha's comments that the contemplatives in question are "attached" to their views and in the third numbered section, he also specifically mentions people being "conceited". He seems to be saying that by being attached to views and being conceited, this leads to (1) harmful conduct, ie. "quarrel and fight" and "speaking hurtfully because of their views" and (2) "sinking in mid-stream", ie. not reaching the goal. So I think that one of the important themes of the unnumbered sections is to point out that being attached to one's own view of the truth and being conceited are both a source of harmful conduct and an obstacle to reaching the goal of seeing the Dhamma. This means we should maintain an investigative and open mind rather than being the same as those contemplatives mentioned in the Suttra who say, "Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless."
Svakkhato bhagavata dhammo, Well-expounded is the Exalted One’s Dhamma,
sanditthiko, to be seen by oneself,
akaliko, here and now, not delayed in time,
ehipassiko, (inviting one to) come and see,
opanayiko, leading inward,
paccatam veditabbo to be seen by the wise men
vinnuhi’ti. for themselves.
'There are these eighteen explorations for the intellect'
Eye, eye object, eye consciousness
ear, .........
nose ........
tongue.........
body.....
mind, mind objects, mind consciousness.
The problem with determinism as described in this passage is that it leaves no room for present action to changes the consequences one faces, because it implies that one's present choices are entirely determined by one's history. BTW, the creator-god fallacy the Buddha describes is closer to fatalism, as fatalism ascribes events to (the god of) fate.
Sectarianism can only cause conflict, as different views are bound to conflict.
Looking at the same truth from different viewpoints, people who do not see the larger picture or think holistically only encounter part of the truth, a part that conflicts with other parts if taken individually to be the sole truth. By limiting one’s perspective to a single view, by exclusively holding one stance, one never sees anything beyond one's narrow field of vision. All one has ever seen is contained in a tiny box, compartmentalized and demarcated, separate from anything else. Attachment to views makes one possessive of one’s beliefs.
By seeing only one side of a multi-dimensional figure, a single face of 6-sided die, one misses the whole image, the bigger picture.
I think when I first read this I was thinking of this as a sort of dismissal of all metaphysical views because they cannot accurately describe existence. That would conveniently coincide with my own personal anti-metaphysical views.
But I think now that is not the Buddha's point here at all. It seems to me that it is views AS attachments that the Buddha is addressing--and the reason why is because the harm that comes by clinging to them, whatever such a view might be (even if it were "true").
The important part the Buddha is addressing isn't the content of any of these metaphysical beliefs, but what they all appear to hold in common: "Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless." Such dogmatism leads to quarrelling that causes more harm than good.
Take a quick look at history and you can see, in both religion and in politics how ideology becomes an idol to which we have fervently sacrificed lives. But even when it doesn't involve killing, but just arguing, when it becomes heated, anger is needlessly stirred up for all parties concerned and so it doesn't even matter if someone is right and someone is wrong--no one benefits from clinging to a view of any kind--it only stirs up confusion and anger. And for that, you don't even have to look at history--you can look at an internet forum sometimes (me included!).
No matter what view one takes, at best it can only describe the nature of things partially, not entirely (hence the story of the elephant and the blind men). We cling to that partiality and as a consequence we end up "wounding one another with weapons of the mouth."
It has been said more than once here that Right View is also a view. But the difference I think is that Right View is not dependent on concepts ABOUT what is true, but about "entering" truth, if that makes any sense. The common mistake is thinking that "truth"--whetever it "is"--is something expressed in words. But "truth" is not an ideology to believe in. Right View is expressed not in words, but in one's daily life and interactions with others--one must "go beyond / the wandering-on" of samsara by developing non-attachment.
It reminds me of something Kafka wrote in his notebook: "Not everyone can see the truth, but he can be it." Anything less results in stirring up passions which are harmful. Please note, I'm not saying views are harmful per se, but clinging to views are. It is possible to skillfully foster beneficial lives without clinging to views, even Buddhist views.
I imagine this is part of the reasoning behind the first three of the 14 mindfulness trainings in the Order of Interbeing:
[1] Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.
[2] Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing nonattachment from views and being open to other’s insights and experiences in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.
[3] Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our view on others, we are determined not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination – to adopt our views. We are committed to respecting the rights of others to be different, to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, learn to help others let go of and transform narrowness through loving speech and compassionate dialogue.