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.
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.
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.
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”.
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."
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?
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.
Many years ago a Buddhist monk from Myanmar (Burma) in a Japanese Buddhist temple told me that Sri Lankan Buddhist chanting style is like singing, thus is not a correct way of Buddhist chanting.
The Myanmar monk’s chanting style at that time in the temple was similar to just reading the texts!
I’m still confused by the fact that he calls ordinary lay people Buddhists in name only. That would mean most Buddhists aren’t really Buddhist. What do you think he means by this? Am I, as a beginner and ordinary lay person a Buddhist in name only?
There are a couple ways to approach this line of thought. One, as this thread has been doing for the most part, is to think of it as an intellectual question and try to figure out the answer.
The other is to see this line of thinking as a form of doubt - one of the five hindrances. From that perspective there is no need to find an answer to the question. The important thing is to let go of the question, let go of the doubt, let go of the hindrance.
I read a book by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu titled “Buddha Dhamma for Inquiring Minds”. It is also known as Buddha Dhamma for Students. I’ve asked questions about this book before.
Buddhadasa says in the book that commoners are Buddhists in name only and that: “To be a ‘true Buddhist’ is to be ariya, those of noble practice who understand everything around them correctly to a far higher degree than ordinary people.” and: “The reward you will reap with nobility is to rise from the level of ordinary commoner to become a true Buddhist in the ariyan discipline.”
What do you think he means here by “true Buddhist”? My understanding was that anyone who takes refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and actually attempts to live by Buddhist principles, is a true Buddhist. By Buddhadasa Bhikkhu standards, wouldn’t most Buddhists not be true or real Buddhists?
I know the ariya sangha, such as stream winners, are more advanced and knowledgeable than commoners, but most Buddhists aren’t ariyas.
The stream enterer has unshakable confidence in the dhamma because they have proven it by actual experience, just as the Buddha-to-be did pre-awakening:
""And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that ‘Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.’
“As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others… to the affliction of both… it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.”
Until the practitioner has this experience they are bound by mere empty rites and precepts, so there is a difference. If the beginner lives by Buddhist principles, they will eventually attain this position:
"“Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.”
—Majjhima Nikaya 19
It is legitimate to feel pain at not being advanced to the higher stage, this is a ‘painful feeling not of the flesh.’
“There is the case where a monk considers, ‘O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that those who are noble now enter & remain in?’ And as he thus nurses this yearning for the unexcelled liberations, there arises within him sorrow based on that yearning.”
I’ve often wondered about not singing or dancing. From what I’ve heard, that injunction is primarily for Monastics or lay persons who might be residing at a monastery who must also observe the Eight precepts.
The Eight precepts observed by Monastics has as its seventh precept:
“ I observe the precept of abstaining from dancing, singing, music shows, wearing garlands and beautifying with cosmetics.”
——buddhistmonks.ca
My teacher Bhante Yatiyana Wajirapala Thero, who is the Abbot of the North Carolina Buddhist Vihara, once told us that those kinds of entertainment can become a distraction and an impediment to serious meditation practice. Theravada basically feels that it’s more likely for a monastic to attain Nibbana than for a householder. It makes sense.
One needs many, many hours or years of intense meditation and training to get to the other shore. That’s why people ordain.
As a professional musician, I know what it’s like to get a song stuck in my head.
That can be very distracting during meditation. As far as dancing,I can only assume that the Buddha didn’t think it was a good idea for a Monk to see dancing girls in a show because it could trigger desire or attachment to another form of sensual pleasure. I suspect the Buddha felt that if a monk danced, it could also trigger an attachment to pleasant sensual feelings.
And as far as beautifying the body with cosmetics, there is the possibility of identifying with the body.
All of these are serious distractions and a hindrance to those whose main task is finding liberation and extinguishing the fires of greed, hatred and delusion.
Welcome to Discourse & Discover, the discussion forum for SuttaCentral. We’re happy you found your way here, and we hope you find the resources of benefit to your practice. If you need any assistance, please feel free to reach out to the moderators at @moderators.
To answwr this exactly…he is right in saying who true buddhist is when you consider the goal of followers of Lord Buddha, which is liberation/nibbana(to be free from the sufferings & pains of samsara). But 90 % of today’s buddhists(by this I mean those who have some degree of faith in teachings of Buddha) are not Aryan’s, it’s not debatable but a fact. So we should accept that…if we consider our life filled with mix of happiness and sufferings, we are not Aryans(yet)! But buddha did not abandon anyone because one couldn’t be monk and renounce the samsara. That’s the reason we have 5 precepts of lay persons(like you and me). For lay persons there are 5 precepts and for monks about 225 or something. There is a reason for that, we as lay persons enjoy dancing, music and various kinds of sensual pleasures…so only 5 precepts are given. Try focusing on becoming ‘true lay buddhist’ instead of ‘true buddhist’. True lay buddhist’ is one who is not renunciant and follows 5 precepts daily and 8 precepts on uposatha days.(although not all follow 8 precepts as it is not that easy to follow). 5 precepts are atleast must…just focus on that.
See you said you are new to buddhism so you don’t need to judge yourself in negative way based on venerable buddhadasa’s bhikkhu’s standards because he was talking within some context.
Your understanding is correct…but I hate to break it to you that…we(lay Buddhists) although we have taken refuge in triple jewels in name (daily saying that "buddham Sharanam gacchami…"and so on), we actually haven’t taken refuge completely. We are not living by buddhist principles perfectly but (as you said above) we are ATTEMPTING TO LIVE BY BUDDHIST PRINCIPLES.
If we go by words…
1)Living by buddhist principles = ‘true buddhist’ (Aryans)
2)ATTEMPTING to live by buddhist principles = ‘buddhist’
So 90% of Buddhists come in the 2nd category.
Plz understand this…taking refuge in triple refuge is not yes/no task; it is not like turning light off/on; it is a process one has to put efforts daily, at each moments. Its like we are moulding our mind day by day(abandoning tendencies which bring harm and cultivating tendencies which are beneficial). In other words we are not ‘true buddhist’ yet, but gradually we are trying. So it’s not yes/no task but a gradual process of purification.
I will give you an analogy… we should see this as our teacher saying that you don’t study enough, if you had, you would have gotten 100% but you are not ‘true apprentice’. See here teacher is pushing us(students) to progress higher n higher. Techers can sometimes be harsh on students so that some students might progress faster. A true student ideally tries to score 100%. So yes in teacher’s eyes we are not true students, we are working to be true students.
It is same as above we are not perfectly taking refuge in buddha, dhamma and sangha; we are actually trying to do it perfectly day by day.
Yes by Buddhadasa bhikkhu’s standards only stream-enterer or higher noble beings are true Buddhists and we are trying to reach there…so we are trying to be true Buddhists…hence we are not ‘True buddhist’ but we are just ‘Buddhists’. (If we go by the words alone).
I think buddhadasa’s bhikkhu’s remarks should be seen as remarks given to student who’s ‘learning’ but not yet ‘learned’ or completed study…hence not ‘true student’ but just ‘student’.
Lastly I would like to suggest you one thing…plz try not to judge yourself so harshly based on various remarks of various teachers. As buddha said, be a lamp unto yourself…so just ignore if some other lamp says you are not that bright or another lamp says you are too bright. Just absorb what benefits you and ignore/let go of what doesn’t seem to be of benefitting you! Focus on EBT’s which are best standards to know dhamma. Its actually easier like this.
Btw sorry if I sounded rude or disrespectful somewhere, my English isn’t perfect! And also Because I am not ‘true English speaker’ rather I’m trying to be ‘true English speaker’ hence I am just ‘English speaker’! Just tried to extend analogy further…
I don’t think we need to follow anyone else, as long as we have the teachings of the Buddha:
With Mahānāma
At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Sakyans, near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Monastery. Then Mahānāma the Sakyan went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
“Sir, how is a lay follower defined?”
“Mahānāma, when you’ve gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, you’re considered to be a lay follower.”
“But how is an ethical lay follower defined?”
“When a lay follower doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence, they’re considered to be an ethical lay follower.”
“But how do we define a lay follower who is practicing to benefit themselves, not others?”
“A lay follower is accomplished in faith, but doesn’t encourage others to do the same. They’re accomplished in ethical conduct, but don’t encourage others to do the same. They’re accomplished in generosity, but don’t encourage others to do the same. They like to see the mendicants, but don’t encourage others to do the same. They like to hear the true teaching, but don’t encourage others to do the same. They readily memorize the teachings they’ve heard, but don’t encourage others to do the same. They examine the meaning of the teachings they’ve memorized, but don’t encourage others to do the same. Understanding the meaning and the teaching, they practice accordingly, but they don’t encourage others to do the same. That’s how we define a lay follower who is practicing to benefit themselves, not others.”
“But how do we define a lay follower who is practicing to benefit both themselves and others?”
“A lay follower is accomplished in faith and encourages others to do the same. They’re accomplished in ethical conduct and encourage others to do the same. They’re accomplished in generosity and encourage others to do the same. They like to see the mendicants and encourage others to do the same. They like to hear the true teaching and encourage others to do the same. They readily memorize the teachings they’ve heard and encourage others to do the same. They examine the meaning of the teachings they’ve memorized and encourage others to do the same. Understanding the meaning and the teaching, they practice accordingly and they encourage others to do the same. That’s how we define a lay follower who is practicing to benefit both themselves and others.” Link
In general, Buddhism isn’t against singing. Referring to DN 21, the Buddha was charmed while enjoying absorption by a deity with his singing and harp playing. The Buddha did not seem to mind what that deity had done.
(If we go by the words alone).
Just tried to extend analogy further…