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

Essays
62

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:

63

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.

64

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:

65

Experts are not infallible and make mistakes like everybody else.

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

66

[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

67

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?

68

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
70

Thanks🙏

1 Like
71

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
72

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