Incorporating Non-Orthodox Interpretations into Practice

Discussion
1

Fortsetzung der Diskussion von Unorthodox renderings of anatta:

Hi Oshan, welcome to our forum! :slight_smile:

The problem with this particular unorthodox interpretation is that it was not taught by the Buddha. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of futility, absence of an everlasting refuge apart from the True Dhamma, is a perfectly Buddhist concept, and meditating on them can bring you much benefit, but their place in the entire conceptual structure of the Dhamma is far from being as crucial as that of anatta, anicca, or dukkha. Putting them in a wrong place changes the entire direction of our practice, it changes our priorities in the practice, it distracts us from the deepest insights that the Dhamma has to offer. So ultimately it will not lead us to the best possible results we can achieve - even though they can have a positive effect.

The right way to incorporate these ideas into your practice is in my opinion to acknowledge their true place in the entire outline of the Teaching as well as acknowledge that they cannot be used as a replacement of the actual key concepts of the Buddhadhamma. How do we know what the actual Buddhadhamma is supposed to be? Well, among other things thanks to linguistic research of the Pali language.

What I mean, is that suggesting sound ideas is one thing, replacing more important ideas with your new ones altogether is a completely different story. If Lal or Rajitha just told us: ‘Hey guys, why don’t me meditate on futility or recognize it is so important,’ no-one, absolutely no-one would have anything against it. Saying that the traditional doctrine of anatta is incorrect - I don’t know about that. Trying to argue that such a replacement is required with arguments that any halfway competent person would recognize as patently absurd makes it even worse.

7 Likes
2

Nibbana is not get rid of attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
Those teachers of Buddha before his enlightenment did not have the attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
What they did not know was Anatta.

3

I don’t think that’s true. The Buddha said their paths did not lead to final liberation, so clearly there was some attachment remaining in the highest stages of realization they taught, and presumably also some ignorance.

2 Likes
4

There is a Sutta to support this.
I can’t locate it.

1 Like
5

His teachers are mentioned in only a few suttas and I don’t recall any of them supporting your claim. In fact, MN 26 says the opposite:

“Thus Āḷāra Kālāma, my teacher, placed me, his pupil, on an equal footing with himself and awarded me the highest honour. But it occurred to me: ‘This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of nothingness. Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.’

and later in the sutta:

“Thus Uddaka Rāmaputta, my companion in the holy life, placed me in the position of a teacher and accorded me the highest honour. But it occurred to me: ‘This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’ Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.

1 Like
6

No that is not it.
I can recall we had this discussion in Dhamma Wheel and Ven. Dhammanado supported my statement.
(Disclaimer: Perhaps I was dreaming. :grin:)

7

Ok, I found the link to the discussion.

Arahants are not fully free from attachment, aversion, and ignorance!

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=24049&p=344590&hilit=

And then again there is a Sutta I can’t locate it.
Perhaps this should be an another topic. A moderator may split the discussion.

8

Your claim was that his past teachers did not have greed, hatred, and delusion. That’s what I was responding to. I don’t see how that thread supports that claim.

1 Like
9

Sorry, I can’t locate this Sutta.
If I found it again I will PM you, if I still remember this discussion.

10

Perhaps this Sutta:

"Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: ‘How then, friends, is the goal one or many?’ Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: ‘Friends, the goal is one, not many.’[2] — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one affected by lust or free from lust?’ Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: ‘Friends, that goal is for one free from lust, not for one affected by lust.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one affected by hate or free from hate?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one free from hate, not for one affected by hate.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one affected by delusion or free from delusion?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one free from delusion, not for one affected by delusion.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one affected by craving or free from craving?’ [65] Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one free from craving, not for one affected by craving.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one affected by clinging or free from clinging?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one free from clinging, not for one affected by clinging.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one who has vision or for one without vision?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one with vision, not for one without vision.’ — ‘But, friends, is that goal for one who favors and opposes, or for one who does not favor and oppose?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one who does not favor and oppose, not for one who favors and opposes.’[3] — ‘But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.’[4]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

11

Great sutta excerpt but I don’t see how it supports the claim.

Sorry for derailing your thread Vstakan. Maybe the mods can move our side convo to its own…

1 Like
12

The fascinating mind:

Mind is hungry for beautiful sights, for soothing sounds, pleasurable smells, delicious tastes, all kinds of pleasurable touches and pleasurable thoughts . It finally feels like it’s struggle is over. It’s close to getting these at an adequate amount to keep it from falling down to a state of depression. Maybe to an extent where it seems to be worth the struggle.

But then another mind communicates with it and asks:

Is there any pleasures in this world that you have managed to maintain as you desire? ( The contacting mind calls it Anicca)

Mind: It goes through it’s repository of past pleasures and comes to the conclusion, actual no, there have been no pleasures in the past that it was able to maintain as it desired. ( Luckily remaining mindful during pleasurable experiences helped. Meditation)

Did this bring pleasure or pain? ( The contacting mind calls it Dukkha)

Mind analyses all the beautiful sights that eventually turned stale, soothing sounds after listening for hours turned into pain, delicious tastes turned sour after sometime, pleasurable smells giving head aches by inhaling too much and sensual touches fading away turning into pain. Thoughts when had too much, how mind had to find an exist. It saw pleasure was in trying to bring balance to the body and it’s self. ( All in an illusion created by itself)

Is this existence meaningful? ( The contacting mind calls it anatta)

Mind analyses the struggles it goes through to acquire these pleasures, maintain it to it’s desire. All the battles it has been in. All the meaningless efforts it has put in the past. Suddenly the mind sees pleasure as a wolf hiding in sheep’s skin. It’s lost and seeks refuge.

The contacting mind points to Buddha dhamma.

Year on mind reflects back on the change that has happen and sees how this world it once saw as a place of immense pleasure now seen as a battle ground filled with land minds. It sees the happiness and peace that lies in managing to stop some of it’s struggle. It then reflects back on it’s change of state and it is fascinated by it. But it knows it needs to work on detaching all links to this world and some other pleasures it’s expose to as it became less hungry towards five sense pleasures.

Mind is truly the most fascinating phenomenon of nature.

This is what the so called I experienced. This is all the so called I wanted to communicate.

With Metta,
Oshan

1 Like
13

Actually, it is the expanding mind points to Buddha Dhamma.
The contracting mind points to attachment, aversion, and ignorance.