Ven Gotami would have listened to many hundreds of sermons from the Buddha himself and she received a summarized teaching from the Buddha about what the dhamma is. We should not assume that we can deduct what the dhamma is based on just one sutta. This sutta could easily apply to the teachings of Nigantanataputta or even any theistic religion which has renunciation in it. The true meaning of the words used require some familiarity and/or study. A broad foundation in the EBT, deep practice and reflection of practice off kalyanamittas would be necessary to say one has a broad sense for the dhamma. We cannot arrive at this all at once. There is a sense of starting off in the baby pool and getting into bigger and bigger pools of the practice.
I think itâs beautiful that in AN 10.93, Anathapindika doesnât declare what is true or false, rather he points out that all views are fabricated and dependently originated, even the view that all views are fabricated and dependently originated.
Yes, it is a filter. But it all depends on what meanings the words convey. It has to be dhamma for stream entrants and higher (as that would convey specific teachings from the Buddha, not found in other doctrines)
so âdispassionâ here is not just any dispassion, but viraga which arises from seeing the tilakkhana - impermanence, unsatisfactorinesss, and not self, leading to repulsion (nibbida) and dispassion (viraga), as in the Anattalakkhana sutta. Then this teaching would become a means of distinguishing the Buddhaâs dhamma.
If someone is wrong whatâs the problem with that? Everybody with opposing views perhaps, cannot be right. Political correctness to the point that everyone has to be right has lead to the post-truth era and further, fake-news, IMO.
I just think it is a shame that such beings would probably be censored nowadays without much discussion or debate for not being politically correct enough, not everywhere of course but probably in a multi-traditional Buddhist environment.
I have complained about this too in the past and have noticed this in my interactions on Buddhist forums. Buddhism in the west is popular mainly in USA. USA is the only country in the world where postmodernism philosophy got to be popular, a philosophy the suttas consider to be âa product of sheer stupidityâ. Out of 62 philosophies of the time, this one is the only one considered to be a product of sheer stupidity. Sutta quotes: Is postmodernism âa product of sheer stupidityâ according to Buddhism?
Luckily for us, this ridiculous and self-refuting philosophy only got to be popular in USA witch has 4% of the world population. The rest of the globe is pretty much totally free from such anti-debating ideas. And even in USA, people donât really believe in it. They just use it as a defense, being driven by clinging to views. Itâs a childish and ridiculous defense, but nobody really believes in it other than really hardcore postmodernist.
The way the find the truth is only one: through debate. In the times of the Buddha, India had a very pro-debate culture and the loser of a debate would lose all his disciples to the winner. People were also much more intellectually honest and with smaller clinging to views than in present times. We also see in the suttas that most villages had a âdebating hallâ and that buddhist monks were regularly going to such places and try to bring people to right-view. Buddha encouraged monks to debate, scolded them when they did not know how to debate correctly, etc. When Buddha lists the number of reasons why he should not die yet and continue to live, one of the reasons is âhaving disciples capable of refuting the thesis of other wanderers in a debateâ.
But the point of debate is to bring people to right view, and one should be effective when debating. This is why we have the suttas about not stating âonly this is true, everything else is falseâ because that is a very inefficient in a debate. We should look at the way Buddha debated to get an idea of how one can be effective. For example, one time he speaks with a monk who was practicing mindfulness wrongly. He does not say âyou are practicing wrongly, you should practice like thisâ. What he says is âthat is mindfulness, I do not say it is not. But⌠it is not right mindfulnessâ. Debating like this is far more effective than being overly aggressive or categorical, a problem I for example have.
So I donât think an arahant would be debating too categorically. Itâs not because of some ridiculous belief in postmodernism, but because itâs simply not efficient to debate like that. If one goal is to bring people to right view and, being an arahant, the person doesnât have hidrancess to hinder his debating capabilities, then one will debate in a style more similar to the Buddha who was not afraid to make categorical statements, but knew when the time was right for making them without losing his debating partner and taking away his chance of moving towards right view.
Correct. But also political correctness is not popular in non-western cultures, so they are more likely to speak up. Also they are less likely to toe the party line, than in a western culture, especially if Buddhism is being skewed. There seem to be different standards of what is polite speech. Gruesome similies are found in EBTs which are acceptable in the East but seemingly not in the West, which are used to deliver a particularly strong message.
âPolitical correctnessâ is present everywhere. In every culture, there are many taboo subjects and themes. For example, on this forum, I censor myself routinely in order to avoid chafing the sensibilities of the orthodox and traditional.
