Essay: Winter Tricycle: "The entrance of Buddhist ethics into the modern world"

Fair enough. Yes, I have no problem in interpreting meditative absorption as “realms” of my own possible psychological experience. But at this point, I have no reason to think that they are independent realms in which real other beings abide, even when I am not experiencing them.

1 Like

The only difference I see is that you don’t extrapolate as far as I do. I extrapolate from my own experience the existence of other realms based, in part, on my own experience in this realm and the other realm anyone can easily observe: the animal realm. No meditation was required.

I think this shows a fundamental difference between how you and I perceive the Buddha’s wisdom. I don’t see him as being capable of being so thoroughly fooled by his own mind. Nor do I see him capable of the kind of deception you describe.

It seems that our different perceptions of his wisdom contribute to our different views of his teachings on rebirth.

I always say, as far as spiritual practice goes: do what works best for you.

1 Like

OK, that seems to be a tidy place to wrap this up. You can have the last word in the discussion. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Likewise, it was a good discussion. :slight_smile:

1 Like

We don’t have to think that. But, can such suffering be explained by ordinary reasons alone ? Like socio-economic reasons, environmental conditioning etc. There are billions of beings inhabiting this planet, how can a single individual’s misery be explained or justified ? It seems terribly cold-hearted and callous to think that misery could be self-made in innocent beings, but can you negate the reasoning that birth is the fundamental cause for all pain ?

Trying to reduce the Dhamma to a moral or ethical system that can be used in this lifetime alone removes all possibility of understanding inequality and unfairness in existence. It can be used to alleviate one’s suffering, but there are many systems which aim to do the same, with varying degrees of success and the Dhamma would be no different.

I think the key difference is the Buddha’s penetrative understanding of kamma which makes him say:

This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time - crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing - not the water in the four great oceans.

1 Like

AN 3.61 negates it, which states pleasure & pain do not come from past kamma.

Dhp 137 negates it, which states there are innocent victims:

137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states:

138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges, loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

:seedling:

AN 3.61 seems to refute this theory & seems to teach the very opposite. AN 3.61 seems to state past life theory removes all possibility of understanding inequality and unfairness in existence.

[quote=“Sujith, post:56, topic:3811”]I think the key difference is the Buddha’s penetrative understanding of kamma which makes him say:

This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time - crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing - not the water in the four great oceans.
[/quote]

What appears to be a metaphor here does not appear to be related to kamma. Bad kamma in the EBTs is generally about killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, wrong speech, greed, hatred & selfish ingratitude (delusion) rather than about grieving for the loss of loved ones. In fact, to make meritorious offerings for the benefit of deceased family members is good kamma (per DN 31).

The sutta ends with a directive for this present life as follows:

Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.

:seedling:

1 Like

You are quite right. Thanks.

[quote=“Deeele, post:57, topic:3811”][quote=“Sujith”]
It seems terribly cold-hearted and callous to think that misery could be self-made in innocent beings, but can you negate the reasoning that birth is the fundamental cause for all pain ?[/quote]

AN 3.61 negates it, which states pleasure & pain do not come from past kamma.
[/quote]
Birth can be seen as a fundamental cause of dukkha. This is said directly in AN 10.65.

AN 3.61 doesn’t negate that. The wrong view there is that “all feelings are caused by what is done in the past.” That doesn’t preclude the possibility that some feelings are caused by what is done in the past. I read their wrong view and the other 2 wrong views in that sutta as doctrines of fatalism.

Ven. Brahmali also reads it as a doctrine of fatalism, but with an even more convincing explanation that Ven. Bodhi appears to agree with. See Ven. Bodhi’s note on the passage in his translation. If you or someone else doesn’t have it and are interested, I can reproduce it here.

The Pali term you are referring to is ‘abhinibbatti’, which is one of the dozen or so terms the scholars claim to mean ‘rebirth’. I doubt the Buddha would have used a dozen terms to refer to the same thing. I would suggest you need to offer more than merely copying & pasting a questionable translation of the words ‘abhinibbatti’ & ‘anabhinibbatti’.

:seedling:

When, friend, there is abhinibbatti, this pain is to be expected: cold and heat, hunger and thirst, excrement and urine, contact with fire, contact with punishment, contact with weapons, and anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. AN 10.65

Your interpretation of AN 10.65 is highly questionable, when compared to MN 2, which states:

What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring MN 2

MN 2 seems to show the translation or interpretation of AN 10.65 is inaccurate since the abandoning of the taints (asava) is a synonym for dukkha nirodha & NIbbana.

:seedling:

The sutta is actually about kamma, i…e, what should be done & what should not be done. Feelings in themselves are not suffering, as stated in many places, such as MN 37, MN 38, MN 149, Iti 44, SN 36.6 & in AN 3.61, which describes the 18 explorations of the mind (based on the 18 feelings).

Note: Please do not quote that sutta that states: “All feelings are unsatisfactory”. The 2nd characteristic of ‘unsatisfactoriness’ is not the ‘suffering’ of the 1st noble truth. They are different things, just as “dukkha-vedana” is not “suffering feelings”. The word “dukkha” has different meanings in different contexts.

More important, the beginning of AN 3.61 is not about feelings anyway, since the term ‘vedana’ is not found there. The Pali is:

paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ

When this terminology ‘paṭisaṃvedeti’ is used, it is referring to “experiencing happiness & suffering” as a broad term, rather than to specific vedana/feelings that arise at specifically at sense contact prior to craving. For example, this terminology is found in MN 149, which refers the fruition of Dependent Origination, as follows:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences (paṭisaṃvedeti) bodily and mental suffering.

I would suggest with AN 3.61, the translators probably have made another error here. The translators are not experts sent to earth by God. They are just ordinary people, like you & me, groping in the dark, similar to the long line of blind Brahman priests who follow what their forefathers taught about Pali. They generally all fall back on the same Pali dictionaries. In reality, the meaning of words can probably only be fully understood in context.

In my opinion, it is not virtuous or appropriate to cite venerable bhikkhus as support in the situation when our own views are highly tenuous , because this may bring disrepute upon those bhikkhus. Instead, you should make your own arguments based in the reported or alleged words of the Buddha.

For example, if Bhikkhu Bodhi truly believes the experiences of happiness & suffering (paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ) are determined by past life kamma, why is Bhikkhu Bodhi so strongly dedicated to social activism? What change could Bhikkhu Bodhi’s efforts bring?

In short, I could not really grasp why you introduced ‘fatalism’ into the discussion? It seems like whatever Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote is being referred to in a ritualistic way.

Kamma-vipaka arises dependent on sense contact according to AN 6.63 and SN 12.15.

:seedling:

Thanks, but I’ll trust Ven. Bodhi’s knowledge of Pali over yours.

As for your other views, I don’t think addressing them will be fruitful or a good use of time. I’ll just copy-paste what I wrote before, which is where I think the primary conditioning of your views is found.

Since you are not an expert in Pali, how can you make such a judgment or claim? The suttas clearly state it is ignoble speech to claim to know something that is not truly known.

My post comparing paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ found in AN 3.61 to MN 149 shows Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of AN 3.61 is highly questionable & probably wrong.

I read nothing compelling above since I personally do not reject ‘kamma & rebirth’. Instead, I personally only reject certain ‘interpretations’.

In fact, it can be easily argued that VBBs view above pertains to his own views. Copying & pasting rhetoric like this will just lead to endless arguments. It is really unrelated to the Buddha-Dhamma, which was described as follows:

Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the holy life?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?”

“Yes, venerable sir.”

“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’

MN 38

A desperate appeal to a perceived authority of Bhikkhu Bodhi strays more & more away from the Buddha-Dhamma. Plus it is a negation of one’s own personal responsibilities towards study, practise & realisation.

:deciduous_tree:

Do I have to be an expert in climate science to judge whether a person is a climate science expert? No. I judge based on the evidence: their position in academia, their educational credentials, their peer-reviewed papers, the respect of their peers, etc. I judge Ven. Bodhi similarly and conclude he is indeed an expert in Pali: he studied it for years, he’s translated 3 Nikayas, he’s well-respected by his peers, was president of BPS, etc.

That’s cool, it was worth a try.

Yes, you do, because there are conflicting theories about climate change.

One would be very naive to believe in consensus because consensus forms the basis of both political control & the resultant academic funding. ‘Consensus’ is ‘big business’ $$$$$.

I can argue many convincing cases of probable errors by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Your judgment has no proven basis in reality.

Even Ajahn Brahmali has started topics here about errors by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

In conclusion, you did not even consider the point I made about AN 3.61 vs MN 149. This shows one is not engaging in open discussion but, instead, in a sectarianism of fixed views.

:palm_tree:

Experts are not infallible and make mistakes like everybody else.

Our discussion has long since reached the end of being fruitful. Bye for now.

[quote=“Mkoll, post:65, topic:3811, full:true”]
Experts are not infallible and make mistakes like everybody else.[/quote]

That is obviously why they are not “experts” but merely professional “scholars”.

It was fruitful because your contradictions were made clear or brought to light, which is a step in the right direction of not clinging to views tenaciously.

:strawberry::pineapple::tangerine::lemon::banana:

(44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them; we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease — thus effacement can be done. MN 8

One curious feature about the evening leading to the Bodhisatta’s awakening was the massive number of previous lives he saw and the detail in which he saw them. Let’s just say he saw 100,000 previous existences (though the suttas suggest he saw way, way more) and for each of those 100,000 existences he spent one second recalling the details of that existence, then that would take almost 27 hours. But suttas suggest he spent much less time than this recalling his previous lives. So I wonder how it is possible he saw so many lives in such great detail in so little time. Bhante or anyone else, do you have any suggestions?

The description of the recollection of past lives is a so-called pericope, that is, a standardised passage that recurs throughout the suttas. It can perhaps best be understood as a generalised summary of how past life recollection is done.

Now you wouldn’t expect every instance of a monk or whoever recalling past lives to involve recalling 100,000 of them or more. Indeed, the passage actually says that one recalls one life, also two lives, also three lives, etc. If everyone recalled 100,000 lives, then the mention of the lesser numbers is hard to make sense of. So the passage implies that one recalls any number of lives up to 100,000 or more. The actual number will vary depending on the situation.

So far as the Buddha’s recollection before his awakening is concerned, there is just no way of knowing exactly how many lives he recalled. I suspect it would not have been all that many, since I think he would have gathered what was going pretty quickly.

2 Likes

Thanks🙏

1 Like

Perhaps the perception of time can change when the conditions are right, allowing one to experience more in a given period of time. An hour could feel like and be perceived as an eternity…

3 Likes

Ajahn Brahm once said that “sometimes you need to be strong and upset somebody. It may look like you’re not being kind, but you’re still being compassionate.

I’m grateful for someone like Ajahn Brahmali who has the “courage” to honestly and politely assert what he is confident is the correct teaching of the Buddha. His directness may displease some people, but i think it’s necessary as it gives us, hopefully including those who are upset by his statement, an opportunity to contemplate and dig deeper into the subject, and after skillful reflection and discussions, they could eventually become more open-minded on this subject.

I would like to cite one of Bhante Sujato’s talks on the subject once again:

"I’m not very happy of the way of the debate about rebirth had been framed. There’re some people who’re trying to present a more modern or contemporary kind of Buddhism and who try to argue or suggest that the Buddha did not really believe in or teach rebirth. This is nonsense and this is not worth five seconds of critical thought.

An interesting question should be: Is rebirth true?

This is not something which is obvious at all. So, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for somebody to say: I like Buddhist teachings and Buddhist practices, but I have doubt about the teaching of rebirth…

The Buddha was never worried if somebody disagreed with him. In fact, it happened all the time. In several suttas, somebody would come up and say the thing they disagreed with the Buddha and then they would have a discussion…

What the Buddha really didn’t like is people misrepresenting him…

Buddhism is not a kind of religion that insists you believe everything found in ancient scriptures. We should be happy that we have a community where people can have different beliefs, even about important things…

There’s quite good evidence for rebirth, but I understand that other people have different opinions… If you don’t want to believe in rebirth, that’s fine, but please don’t try to pretend that the Buddha didn’t. "

7 Likes