8 3.39 5Furthermore, take a bad person who receives robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. They reflect: ‘I receive robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick, unlike these other mendicants.’ And they glorify themselves and put others down on account of that. This too is a quality of a bad person. A good person reflects: ‘It’s not because of one’s material possessions that thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end. Even if someone doesn’t receive robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick, if they practice in line with the teaching, practice properly, and live in line with the teaching, they are worthy of honor and praise for that.’ Keeping only the practice close to their heart, they don’t glorify themselves and put others down on account of their material possessions. This too is a quality of a good person.
Is pride for just the characteristics listed in this sutta to be avoided, or pride in any characteristic which can be similarly distinguished to be avoided?
Coming. into Buddhism after having experience in this life in other religious or religious-y belief systems, I try to question assumptions which might be residual from other teachings. “Is it Buddhist, or just cultural…?”, might be a useful question whether one was raised Buddhist or not, i suspect.
As Buddhists - is pride “bad” or neutral or even “good” at times? Is this sutta best taken as literal, just on the characteristics mentioned in it, or quite generalizable to any distinction which causes pride? Especially in light of this sutta, or other EBT suttas, please, share your knowledge or thoughts.
Wouldn’ It be the case that, part of the Buddhist endeavour being to let go of the ego or the self, letting go of all sorts of pride must be part of the process.
I apologise. Can you explain “8 3.39 5” please - I assume it’s an alternative way of referencing suttas? Is the quotation from MN113? The list of characteristics covered in that sutta seems to be pretty exhaustive, right up to
They reflect: ‘I have attained the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, unlike these other mendicants.’ And they glorify themselves and put others down on account of that. This too is a quality of a bad person.
& I think the following is relevant too, where in SNP2.11 the Buddha concludes his advice to Rāhula with
Avoid those objects beautiful,
which may be linked with lust,
on the unlovely, one-pointed,
well-concentrated, grow the mind.
Develop then the signless state,
with tendency to pride let go—
by fully understanding it,
truly as peaceful you will fare.
This is the best I can do to support what I said and I hope it’s of use.
There seems to be a nifty way of linking to references from SC, but I can’t work it out and if someone pointed me to the instructions I’d be grateful.
“Soṇa, there are ascetics and brahmins who—based on form, which is impermanent, suffering, and perishable—regard themselves thus: ‘I’m better’, or ‘I’m equal’, or ‘I’m worse’. What is that but a failure to see truly?
Based on feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, which is impermanent, suffering, and perishable, they regard themselves thus: ‘I’m better’, or ‘I’m equal’, or ‘I’m worse’. What is that but a failure to see truly?
If phenomena are ownerless, it does not really make sense to take pride in them.
It doesn’t make sense to take shame in them either, or even equality.
So IMO in the Dhamma sense it’s more that pride doesn’t make sense.
Like when people feel great about their football team winning just because they are from the same general geographic area as that team.
There’s only the sense of identification to make me feel superior to the people on the other team; I don’t know the players, have no say in how they trained, don’t have any control over their decisions and moves etc. yet I feel like “I won” in a sense, which is silly when you think about it.
2nd question yes, and when i was selecting and copying from Bhante Sujato’s translation, it was copied. I cannot explain the details of question 1, i do not know. Your suggestion in the question seems reasonable to me.
Maybe just impermanence of the khandhas is the issue.
How can we relate with the (pride of a) self, if all of the khandhas are impermanent.
How can we regard such khandhas as the self, or as distinct from the self in the sense of being owned by it, or as existing within the self, or the self as existing within it ?
.
In other words, we are all impermanent - we are impermanence - living in dukkha. What pride to take in that ?
I am just saying that in the spirit of SN 22.89 (major sutta,) SN 12.67, etc. - where the notion: "neither I am (this or that khandha) " nor do I speak of “I am apart from (this or that khandha)”, occurs.
“I” and “mine” are quite distinguishable. https://justpaste.it/vyhx
Therefore, it seems to me that pride is more related to impermanence, than to the “I am this” shebang.
