too strict?

drewenstevenson11

Not with virtue or religious practice,
great learning or samadhi,
dwelling alon
or thinking, "I touch the happiness of renunciation unkown by ordinary people,"
should you, monk, rest assured,
Without having destroyed the toxins.

Is this too strict? Anybody have any comments on this passage from the Dhammapada/ how they interpret it? Thanks, Andy

federica

Could you pinpoint the exact section it comes from?
I'd like to read it in context, please.....

questionful

i think seeing it as "strictness" is a mistake.

The buddha said that if there is a viper in your room and you wish to have a peaceful sleep, you must first get the viper out. That verse seems to be saying, don't be done when you're not done yet.

There is a parable in a book i have about a person that sought some pith (at the core of the tree), went to the forest, and got some tree bark and went back home without the pith he was looking for.

allanstevns

Where strictness is sought, strictness is found.
The Buddha's teachings aren't strict, nor are they soft
The Buddha's teaching present an exact point of view, which we can investigate and maybe experience for ourselves or leave alone. Its only as strict as you make it.

Much love

Allan

seeker242

federica wrote: »

Could you pinpoint the exact section it comes from?
I'd like to read it in context, please.....

It's a newer translation of 271-272

Not only by mere morality and austerities nor again by much learning, nor even by developing mental concentration, nor by secluded lodging, (thinking)
``I enjoy the bliss of renunciation not resorted to by the worldling'' (not with these) should you, O Bhikkhu, rest content without reaching the extinction of the corruptions (Arahatship).

federica

Newer translation by whom?

as is often the case, it loses by being 'modernised'...

I think the original version you quote is by far more understandable.....

jeesh...."If it ain't broke, why fix it"...?

Jeffrey

I think the two translations have the exact same meaning just different word choice..

What do you think he was refering to as corruptions?

Glow

That looks to be Gil Fronsdal's translation. It's actually my favorite translation, and as far as I can tell among the most accurate available. It's not so much modernized as aiming to preserve that actual verse structure of the original Pali, rather than streamlining it into prose as older translations do.

The word translated as toxin/corruption is asava:

asava [aasava]:<dl class="glossary"><dd>Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, views, becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth.

</dd><dt>Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html#fn-mn-007-2</dt><dd&gt;
</dd></dl>The Buddha talks about these in the Sabbasava Sutta.

Jeffrey

I think the view of the mahayana is different from the therevada

therevada envisions destroying the kleshas..

But in the mahayana the energy of the kleshas is same as buddha nature just distorted.. and the view is to realize the kleshas are empty. Thereby they lose the hold they have over us. Rather than destroying them we disempower them by realizing they are empty. And then the buddha nature undistorted at some point comes out from behind the clouds. And you realize that the cloud all along was made of the sun.

sukhita

Jeffrey wrote: »

I think the two translations have the exact same meaning just different word choice..

What do you think he was refering to as corruptions?

....Without having destroyed the toxins.

....without reaching the extinction of the corruptions.

I think both "toxins" and "corruptions" refer to the fetters. (a fetter being a bond that shackles a sentient being to samsara.

Glow

Reading the sutta itself, it seems the Buddha had three different strategies for dealing with the obsessions -- tolerating them, avoiding them, and destroying them:

"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
"[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.
"[6] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

Glow

Jeffrey wrote: »

I think the view of the mahayana is different from the therevada

therevada envisions destroying the kleshas..

But in the mahayana the energy of the kleshas is same as buddha nature just distorted.. and the view is to realize the kleshas are empty. Thereby they lose the hold they have over us. Rather than destroying them we disempower them by realizing they are empty. And then the buddha nature undistorted at some point comes out from behind the clouds. And you realize that the cloud all along was made of the sun.

Yes, sorry, I misspoke. It wasn't the kleshas, but the asavas in that particular verse. Josh Korda of N.Y.C. Dharma Punx translates asava as "obsession", which I quite like. I think the idea behind that verse is that no amount of silence, insight practice, or virtue will one touch the "happiness beyond happiness" if one is caught up in the obsessions/preoccupations.

I actually generally find the Mahayana perspective you cite more helpful than the one in the sutta, especially in regards to the alleged "toxicity" of sensuality. I don't find the Buddha's precription to "abandon it, destroy it, dispel it, & wipe it out of existence" (eesh!) very helpful. The transformative work I've learned from my Mahayana/Vajrayana teachers in seeing these distractions as "distorted wisdom" has been much more helpful, personally.