SuttaCentral
Yeah, I’d care more about what the Buddha said that what the good Venerable has written. He’s somewhat of an iconoclast.
If you want to observe this part of the eight precepts full time, then that’s great. However if it is causing you stress or doubt, then please don’t.
You are clinging to sense pleasures and it’s the cause of your suffering. You are clinging to the self-view of being a true Buddhist and it’s also the cause of your suffering. Fortunately for you there’s Buddhist practice to help with all this clinging. 
I was wondering how you interpret that last quote where he says [quote=“Mumfie, post:5, topic:28459”]
The point here is not that we should never do such things.
[/quote]
Because to me that only adds to the confusion. In one part of the text he seems to be saying don’t sing and dance, but here it’s like saying we can.
Budai monk in Chinese Buddhist temples is also known as the Laughing Buddha. Why he is laughing?
It’s like I have to choose between one or the other.
Indeed.
People will come on this thread and equivocate with you, but the reality is that these behaviors under discussion are completely contradictory to peace, composure of mind, renunciation, and the abandonment of the world. The ultimate goal of practicing the Dhamma is the total abandonment of craving and clinging towards every single source of ultimately unsatisfactory “satisfaction” that you habitually attempt to extract from your senses through your engagement with the world. Attempting—mind you—while eternally failing to succeed. Singing, dancing, and raucous laughter are completely incompatible with terminating the futile process of attempting to find happiness through passionate living; these behaviors are in fact some of the most intense forms of movement in the exact opposite direction. They are moving in the direction of entanglement, agitation, distraction, heedlessness, craving, and madness. The only behaviors more incompatible with Dhamma would be sexual intercourse and breaking the five precepts.
If you want to practice what is commonly understood as “Buddhism”, then by all means, glean whatever happiness you can from this religious tradition, its mythology and meditation techniques, and then go on living mostly how you already do. Buddhism can be—and usually is— another religion like any other. But if you want to practice the Dhamma then, well, some major life changes are going to be in order.
For a practicioner of Dhamma, sitting and doing nothing all alone in a hut in the forest all day should sound like an appealing lifestyle. Eating a single meal of assorted almsfood a day, all dumped into a jumbled pile in a bowl and scooped out with your bare hands, should sound like an appealing lifestyle. Never having sex or engaging in entertainment or any social or political or economic or artistic activities or shows or gatherings whatsoever should sound like an appealing lifestyle.
With that mode of living that is presented in the EBTs in mind, it’s not hard to imagine how insane something as coarsely sensual as dancing would appear to such deeply restrained, aloof, composed, unproliferated and austere samańas as the Buddha and his disciples.
There is sensuality and there is the end of suffering. Pick one.
You can believe that there isn’t a choice to be made, but that belief will itself be an expression of what choice you’ve made.
This is a kind of “black and white” thinking that’s looking for things to either be one way or the other.
But the Buddhist path isn’t really like that. It’s more of a continuous process of maturing.
The analogy is to playing with toys. It’s not wrong to play with toys. A childhood without would be deprived! But at some point, you grow out of blocks and dolls and so on.
If you’re still frightened by the prospect of “having” to give up X or Y, then now isn’t the time for you to renounce those things, that’s all. Just focus on giving up those habits you already know aren’t serving you.
I’m still confused about how a devout or “true Buddhist” is supposed to live. Buddhadasa seems to be saying they shouldn’t sing or dance at all, while K Sri Dammanada seems to be saying devout Buddhists only temporarily abstain from them when he says: “The people who choose to abstain from these entertainments are devout Buddhists who observe the precepts only for a short period as a way of self-discipline.”
Aren’t those contradictory?
Taking his answer as a whole, I believe the ajahn was trying to stretch and challenge his audience, and to inspire in them a wish to live in a dhammically more refined way. But he was also realistic enough to know that there’s a limit to how far this particular audience (Thai university students, mostly from well-off urban middle -class families) was actually open to being stretched. And so he added the part you quoted so as not to scare them off.
Yes, of course. How can you reconcile those two. If singing and dancing was of great concern the Buddha would have admonished some lay people for doing so, yet he hasn’t. So go by the suttas rather than comments by later teachers.
best wishes!
I’m a layperson, not a monk, but never liked singing or dancing anyway.
Don’t try to take me to a disco
You’ll never even get me out on the floor
In ten minutes I’ll be late for the door
Bob Seger
In my version, it would be ten seconds.
The precepts are training rules which prepare the discipline for advanced practice. There practitioners are able to make decisions about behaviour based on their experience about how those behaviours affect their practice. An advanced practitioner wouldn’t laugh because they are constantly aware of the foolhardiness of the conventional reality in which they live. If they behaved foolishly it would disorient the practice, their goal is different to the ordinary uninstructed worldling. Perceptions are based on views, and as right view develops, perceptions of what reality is change as a result.
The difference is the advanced practitioner has attained a different pleasure, and wouldn’t want to jeopardize that:
" “Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he/she has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.”
—Majhima Nikaya 14
A beginner may not be aware of it but through actions they are constantly giving allegiance to samsara, and that is unwise attention. The reverse is also true:
“Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.”
—Majhima Nikaya 2
Right view is developed by studying dhamma so the objects of right attention can be recognized.
Music is a different matter. The suttas refer to ‘being in tune’ (Thanissaro), so knowing what that is is necessary to the practice.
BBC Music & Meditation:
Just don’t be too hard on yourself. None of us should see this Path of Practice as a cross that we bear in life. There are some monastics that have renounced all mundane pleasures, but that treat people badly, or are miserable, greedy, or angry.
Here’s an example of music and devout Buddhism that I found with a quick search: Redirecting...
Redirecting... Redirecting...
Try to find a middle ground between being stressed and practicing as well as you can. You can be a “true Buddhist” and still enjoy music. Done mindfully, these mundane pleasures may not interfere with your meditation practice. If you wish to go forth, you’ll then be expected to forsake most of these mundane pleasures, but until then, your practice can thrive and you can still walk the middle ground of the Path quite well. Don’t worry, don’t stress about this.
Ajahn Sona was a professional guitar player before he became a monastic. As his Buddhist practice grew - before he entered the monastery - he found he didn’t want to listen to anything but classical, then nothing but Baroque, then only Gregorian chants, and then finally he didn’t listen to music.
It wasn’t about suddenly ripping away part of his life - it was discovering through his practice that something that was once important to him no longer was.
This takes place on different levels, depending on where you are on the path. E.g., I only give up all entertainments on Uposatha days. But, for example, I no longer use social media apps at all. That is an entertainment that I see for myself causes me suffering.
…and any of us that have been hanging out here at Bhante’s Sujato’s SuttaCentral online wat for a few years might know of this:
Anyone recognize the guitar player, who also wrote/co-wrote this excellent song?; still a very cool song to this day, with such great vocals.
What’s confusing me the most is the fact that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is saying a normal lay person is not a “true Buddhist”, only ariyas are. Wouldn’t make over 90% of Buddhists not real Buddhists? I thought anyone who took refuge was a “true Buddhist”.
By that definition, sure.
Yeah, that’s the usual definition. Perhaps by “True Buddhists” Ajahn Buddhadasa here is referring to the ariya saṅgha, which (by definition) are those Buddhists who are (at least partially) enlightened.
You must always remember the context of a teaching that you read.
In many of Ajahn Buddhadasa’s talks, he’s addressing a group of Thai lay people who all consider themselves quite good Buddhists (they have, after all, come to hear his Dhamma talk!) and who likely (in Ajahn’s estimation) have become a bit complacent. So, he’s trying to rile people up a bit by reminding his audience that there are two levels of “Buddhists”: those “Buddhists” who are actually on the path to stream entry and beyond, and those “Buddhists” who took refuge and stopped there.
The four levels of ariya involve progressive autonomy with the severing of ten fetters. The first three involve overcoming reliance on precepts:
“As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.”
—Majhima Nikaya 2
At the fourth level eventually the path itself is abandoned. There is a difference (in freedom from impermanence) between these supermundane stages and the mundane path, and also two levels of right view.
" Arya (Sanskrit ārya; Pāli: ariya) is a term used in Buddhism that can be translated as “noble”, “not ordinary”, “valuable”, “precious”,[a] “pure”,[2] “rich”. Arya in the sense of “noble” or “exalted” is frequently used in Buddhist texts to designate a spiritual warrior or hero."
—Wikipedia
I just wish he had used a different phrase or word than “true Buddhist” because it seems like he’s saying most Buddhists aren’t actually Buddhist, and as a new Buddhist that’s kind of discouraging. Also, I assume stream winners are included under the ariyan label. My understanding is that they haven’t given up sensual desires completely. Is that correct?
Sorry for the late reply by the way.
Yeah that’s my understanding as well. Indeed it was a bit of an unfortunate word choice. Only Buddhas are perfect!
Everyone who still has some sort of sensual attachment will find pleasure in music, dancing, singing. Until the third stage of enlightenment, sensual desire remains - its a process of purification by which these things are dropped bit by bit.
At the initial stage of the path, don’t worry about such things. As you progress, you will give these things up naturally, without any conflict, because you’ll see through them to the suffering that they involve and mask.
For now, just stick to perfecting the five precepts and right action, right speech, and right livelihood.