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.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
My mind is boggling with this whole recent conversation about being allowed to have the truth, and about rights. I can't say I really understand what the problem/contention is. Even if we want the truth, do we have any right to force others to tell us the truth? We definitely should have the right to seek the truth for ourselves, and to have our own beliefs, but the world doesn't revolve around our desires. Technically we are the ones revolving around our desires.
The real world is messy, unlike the ideals we try to force upon it. There are better and worse situations, but we'll never live in a world where, for instance, governments don't have to hide things from their citizenry (because of competition, war, the privacy of other citizens, etc). We may contend, argue and debate over what we should expect to have a right-to-know from our governments, but we'll never have full disclosure.
The situation is that we can't control whether others tell us the truth. They may even think they're telling us the truth, while only expressing a false belief. We have to be our own BS-detectors (and that includes questioning and re-questioning our own beliefs until they are supplanted by "knowing"). The most important truths can't be told, or at best can only be told "about", pointed toward with a sly smile or a wink-wink nudge-nudge.
@Jeffrey said:
yes part of what buddha said is you can tell someone the truth if it will benefit them even if it is not pleasant. But it is important how and when you tell them.
@vinlyn said:
My question is: who gives you the right to tell someone when they are allowed to be told the truth?
When I was a child, I read in an old school reader of my Mum (the author quoted "The light of Asia" a lot) that before saying something, what we were about to say should pass three tests. The words are attributed to the Buddha, so most members must be acquainted with them. The three tests are: Is it true? Is it useful? Is it timely?
Rick Hanson adds a fourth: Is it welcome?
So, if we decide that what we are about to say is true, useful, and timely, even if it is not welcome, how we phrase our words will make all the difference in the impact.
@Citta said:
You will almost certainly come across critiques of Ajahn Buddhadasa saying that he is advocating a position which identifies karma and rebirth as ' psychological ' only.
This is a basic misunderstanding of his teaching.
No, it's a valid critique because a purely psychological interpretation of DO is exactly what Buddhadasa describes. He has a materialist outlook and rejects the way that DO is described in the suttas. His interpretation rests on a perceived distinction between everyday language and dhamma language, but he doesn't back up this claim and it seems to be just a personal opinion.
@Simon said:
It seems apparent to me, from reading the records of his oral teachings, that one of Buddha's aims was to impart on his followers aspects of his enlightened perspective on the world, or more specifically on the Hindu dominated society that surrounded them.
Sorry but I don't find this convincing. The Buddha's contemporaries weren't dominated by a Hindu outlook, there were many ideas around, including atheism and materialism - not really that different to how things are now. The Buddha's audience were spiritually quite sophisticated and they wouldn't have needed the Buddha to make things up or spoon-feed them, or whatever.
@SpinyNorman said:
No, it's a valid critique because a purely psychological interpretation of DO is exactly what Buddhadasa describes. He has a materialist outlook and rejects the way that DO is described in the suttas. His interpretation rests on a perceived distinction between everyday language and dhamma language, but he doesn't back up this claim and it seems to be just a personal opinion.
There is no point in discussing this particular subject with you.
Anyone who has got a toehold on what Ajahn Buddhadasa is saying can see that you have not.
And as has been pointed out before, you have a very shaky grasp of what is meant by 'psychological' if you think that he is referring to mind events only.
He does not reject what the Suttas say about D.O. at all. He clarifies what the Suttas say.
His interpretation is neither original nor novel..its reflects a whole well established school within Buddhadharma. He just does it particularly well.
Finally..he is no materialist. You are led to that conclusion by your skewed understanding of his work.
I know that your view is fixed.
But others might actually investigate for themselves what this important teacher is saying.
The actual words as said above are attributed, as far as anyone can tell, to a poem from the 1800s, actually. Buddha's words were quite similar of course, and it is good advice no matter where it comes from. I read a few days ago an addition of asking whether words bring connection or cause divide, and I thought that was a good one.
"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.
"A statement endowed with these five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people."
Vaca Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 5.198). Apparently, there are several others in the same spirit. Like I said, I read it in an old Victorian reader (my grandfather was an empire-builder of sorts), and Rick Hanson words them as attributed to the Buddha.
And the origin is clearly there. The mention of the same questions, in the same order, can't be a coincidence.
Perhaps a poet that has lived in Asia and thought this teaching of the Buddha would make interesting material for a nursery-rhyme? Who knows!
@Jeffrey said:
You give yourself the right. You make your own decisions as best as you are able.>
Okay, then I give myself the right to tell you to leave this thread, and in fact this forum, because I do not believe that you are in the right place of mind to benefit from our discussions. Some of the discussions might lead you to be unsettled.
Only kidding, but this is exactly what I am trying to point out. No one else has the right to filter you receiving information...unless, of course, you live in a dictatorship.
And I'm not done with this particular part of the conversation. If you don't get my point by now, then you just don't get it. And that is fine.
vinlyn, I acknowledged your point numerous times. Good example above. I was just relaying what Buddha taught that being that things should be: true, helpful, non-harsh (delivered well), and at the right time. So for example undermining a person of a different religions faith is not helpful because they need that faith.
Buddha's teachings were geared towards freeing minds from illusion and allowing people to see the world as it really is. I don't think this could include the obviously fabricated and impractical system of Karma and rebirth, which when subjected to the slightest degree of scrutiny is shown to make no sense at all.
Bearing in mind that the ultimate aim of Buddhism is release from the revolving door of Samsara, it seems to me that Karma and rebirth in the Buddha's teachings are symbolic of Maya. They are an illusory construct to be mentally disassembled on the route to enlightenment.
OMG Simon! you've stated this so well!
:clap:
I read Allen Watts years ago when I first became interested in Buddhism. I cannot and do not believe in karma as many describe it. It sounds too much like fundamentalist dogma. Who keeps score? Who teaches someone by not correcting them until well after they've moved on and have forgotten the lesson entirely? It just doesn't make any sense and I tend to expect more from divine forces. LOL
If it means anything at all to me it is simply this: All of us, through our thoughts, words, actions, what we tolerate or reject, what we preserve or destroy, what we respect or degrade, if we are compassionate or cruel, if we are greedy or charitable, if we act with wisdom or stupidity, If we are just or corrupt, - ALL become a cumulative consciousness that creates the future for those who follow us. So, in a sense, karma could describe the conditions we create. It doesn't mean that those born into it deserve the mess. They then have an opportunity to change things for the better if they want it and understand that it goes beyond themselves and that they have a responsibility to those who come after.
People will make up their own minds about whether Buddhadasa's interpretation of dependent origination is supported by the suttas. I don't think it is, partly because there is no basis at all for his claim that birth and death were intended metaphorically rather than literally. And he clearly does have a materialist outlook.
But your patronising and arrogant tone really isn't helpful here, you seem to assume that you're the only one who has understood things properly. That seems highly unlikely to me.
Far from being 'the only one who has understood ' Ajahn Buddhadasa properly, my understanding is a result of being introduced to his take on Dhamma by those who have far more understanding than me..like Ajahn Amaro, Ajahn Sumedho and Dr H Saddhatissa..who all are, or were, great advocates for Ajahn Buddhdasa, as was Ajahn Chah.
In fact Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Buddhadas had a mutual admiration society.
Ajahn Chah spoke frequently about ' my friend Buddhadasa ' which always amused me because the Thai/Lao pronunciation makes it sound like 'Puddidat '
It is your view which is the minority one on this subject @SpinyNorman .
It is you that is claiming unique insight into the issues which does not chime with the views of a whole host of modern Theravadin teachers.
But as you say, people will make their own minds up.
I strongly urge them to read the source material..its widely available on the net.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:
But your patronising and arrogant tone really isn't helpful here, you seem to assume that you're the only one who has understood things properly. That seems highly unlikely to me.
>
>
This sounds a lot like pot, kettle and Black... Watch your tone and pack it in.
Neverstoplovingmom, don't let the teachings get in the way of the truth. That is, don't worry about the esoteric details about what the recorded writings say about previous lives and cause and effect. Be loving, be compassionate. Don't worry about previous lives or future lives. Live this one by the 8-fold path, spread your love to others.
Comments
My mind is boggling with this whole recent conversation about being allowed to have the truth, and about rights. I can't say I really understand what the problem/contention is. Even if we want the truth, do we have any right to force others to tell us the truth? We definitely should have the right to seek the truth for ourselves, and to have our own beliefs, but the world doesn't revolve around our desires. Technically we are the ones revolving around our desires.
The real world is messy, unlike the ideals we try to force upon it. There are better and worse situations, but we'll never live in a world where, for instance, governments don't have to hide things from their citizenry (because of competition, war, the privacy of other citizens, etc). We may contend, argue and debate over what we should expect to have a right-to-know from our governments, but we'll never have full disclosure.
The situation is that we can't control whether others tell us the truth. They may even think they're telling us the truth, while only expressing a false belief. We have to be our own BS-detectors (and that includes questioning and re-questioning our own beliefs until they are supplanted by "knowing"). The most important truths can't be told, or at best can only be told "about", pointed toward with a sly smile or a wink-wink nudge-nudge.
When I was a child, I read in an old school reader of my Mum (the author quoted "The light of Asia" a lot) that before saying something, what we were about to say should pass three tests. The words are attributed to the Buddha, so most members must be acquainted with them. The three tests are: Is it true? Is it useful? Is it timely?
Rick Hanson adds a fourth: Is it welcome?
So, if we decide that what we are about to say is true, useful, and timely, even if it is not welcome, how we phrase our words will make all the difference in the impact.
Spot on @dharmamom. There is more to Right Speech than asking if something is true .
For a start much of the time we don't actually know what the truth is, so our ' truth' is merely our opinion given a big shiny badge to wear.
And as you say usefulness and timeliness are vital. I like Hanson's addition of whether it is welcome.
Are Right Speech fundamentalists going to answer 'yes' to the question
' Is Anne Frank hidden in your attic ? ' ?
That's just one example where lying is Right Speech.
No, it's a valid critique because a purely psychological interpretation of DO is exactly what Buddhadasa describes. He has a materialist outlook and rejects the way that DO is described in the suttas. His interpretation rests on a perceived distinction between everyday language and dhamma language, but he doesn't back up this claim and it seems to be just a personal opinion.
Sorry but I don't find this convincing. The Buddha's contemporaries weren't dominated by a Hindu outlook, there were many ideas around, including atheism and materialism - not really that different to how things are now. The Buddha's audience were spiritually quite sophisticated and they wouldn't have needed the Buddha to make things up or spoon-feed them, or whatever.
There is no point in discussing this particular subject with you.
Anyone who has got a toehold on what Ajahn Buddhadasa is saying can see that you have not.
And as has been pointed out before, you have a very shaky grasp of what is meant by 'psychological' if you think that he is referring to mind events only.
He does not reject what the Suttas say about D.O. at all. He clarifies what the Suttas say.
His interpretation is neither original nor novel..its reflects a whole well established school within Buddhadharma. He just does it particularly well.
Finally..he is no materialist. You are led to that conclusion by your skewed understanding of his work.
I know that your view is fixed.
But others might actually investigate for themselves what this important teacher is saying.
My words are for them.
The actual words as said above are attributed, as far as anyone can tell, to a poem from the 1800s, actually. Buddha's words were quite similar of course, and it is good advice no matter where it comes from. I read a few days ago an addition of asking whether words bring connection or cause divide, and I thought that was a good one.
"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.
"A statement endowed with these five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people."
Vaca Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 5.198). Apparently, there are several others in the same spirit. Like I said, I read it in an old Victorian reader (my grandfather was an empire-builder of sorts), and Rick Hanson words them as attributed to the Buddha.
And the origin is clearly there. The mention of the same questions, in the same order, can't be a coincidence.
Perhaps a poet that has lived in Asia and thought this teaching of the Buddha would make interesting material for a nursery-rhyme? Who knows!
You give yourself the right. You make your own decisions as best as you are able.>
@vinlyn said:
Okay, then I give myself the right to tell you to leave this thread, and in fact this forum, because I do not believe that you are in the right place of mind to benefit from our discussions. Some of the discussions might lead you to be unsettled.
Only kidding, but this is exactly what I am trying to point out. No one else has the right to filter you receiving information...unless, of course, you live in a dictatorship.
And I'm not done with this particular part of the conversation. If you don't get my point by now, then you just don't get it. And that is fine.
vinlyn, I acknowledged your point numerous times. Good example above. I was just relaying what Buddha taught that being that things should be: true, helpful, non-harsh (delivered well), and at the right time. So for example undermining a person of a different religions faith is not helpful because they need that faith.
Wow isn't reflecting on Karma amazing! But this whole preceding dialogue is the price we pay for self-consciousness.
Sukha <-desire-> dukha
Atman <-> Anatman
Samsara <-> Nirvana
Ignorance <-> Wisdom
Birth <-> Death
Love <-> Hate
Time <-> Timeless
Something <-> Nothing
Inhale <- pause - ... \ ? ;0 ! / ... - space> Exhale
one word: 'Madhyamika'...
>
OMG Simon! you've stated this so well!
:clap:
I read Allen Watts years ago when I first became interested in Buddhism. I cannot and do not believe in karma as many describe it. It sounds too much like fundamentalist dogma. Who keeps score? Who teaches someone by not correcting them until well after they've moved on and have forgotten the lesson entirely? It just doesn't make any sense and I tend to expect more from divine forces. LOL
If it means anything at all to me it is simply this: All of us, through our thoughts, words, actions, what we tolerate or reject, what we preserve or destroy, what we respect or degrade, if we are compassionate or cruel, if we are greedy or charitable, if we act with wisdom or stupidity, If we are just or corrupt, - ALL become a cumulative consciousness that creates the future for those who follow us. So, in a sense, karma could describe the conditions we create. It doesn't mean that those born into it deserve the mess. They then have an opportunity to change things for the better if they want it and understand that it goes beyond themselves and that they have a responsibility to those who come after.
People will make up their own minds about whether Buddhadasa's interpretation of dependent origination is supported by the suttas. I don't think it is, partly because there is no basis at all for his claim that birth and death were intended metaphorically rather than literally. And he clearly does have a materialist outlook.
But your patronising and arrogant tone really isn't helpful here, you seem to assume that you're the only one who has understood things properly. That seems highly unlikely to me.
Far from being 'the only one who has understood ' Ajahn Buddhadasa properly, my understanding is a result of being introduced to his take on Dhamma by those who have far more understanding than me..like Ajahn Amaro, Ajahn Sumedho and Dr H Saddhatissa..who all are, or were, great advocates for Ajahn Buddhdasa, as was Ajahn Chah.
In fact Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Buddhadas had a mutual admiration society.
Ajahn Chah spoke frequently about ' my friend Buddhadasa ' which always amused me because the Thai/Lao pronunciation makes it sound like 'Puddidat '
It is your view which is the minority one on this subject @SpinyNorman .
It is you that is claiming unique insight into the issues which does not chime with the views of a whole host of modern Theravadin teachers.
But as you say, people will make their own minds up.
I strongly urge them to read the source material..its widely available on the net.
>
>
This sounds a lot like pot, kettle and Black... Watch your tone and pack it in.
Neverstoplovingmom, don't let the teachings get in the way of the truth. That is, don't worry about the esoteric details about what the recorded writings say about previous lives and cause and effect. Be loving, be compassionate. Don't worry about previous lives or future lives. Live this one by the 8-fold path, spread your love to others.