Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to be direct. Some of the remarks that you made in this post were broadly accurate. With that said, the general direction you seem to have headed in is off (in my opinion, at least). I would suggest retracing your steps back to the fundamentals.
The process of walking along the path involves converting the conceptual understanding of reality that you have into a direct, intuitive, experiental understanding. For most of us, that turns out to be a slow and incrimental process. Consider that reaching the point of having conclusively seen through sensuality (and as a result, removed kama raga and patigha) is a monumental achievement. Yet, that anagami would still be ‘fooling for the magic trick’ corresponding to the rupa loka and arupa loka. But even for that ariya, they still wouldn’t have got to the bottom of ‘self’. So, you’ve got to walk before you can run. Don’t focus on the final boss if you aren’t even a third of the way through the game. Focus on the tasks that are relevant now. Those are the ones that will help you to ‘level up’ and make progress.
When I was at uni (before I came across Buddha Dhamma), there were plenty of opportunities to party. I would often think to myself something like, “I know I shouldn’t drink too much tonight because I’ve got a lecture first thing in the morning.” But every now and then, I would throw caution to the wind and tell myself, “Ahhh that’s okay, future-me can deal with the consequences”.
So I’d go out with friends, get drunk and party. Waking up the next morning was always a painful experience, because I’d realise that the whole ‘future-me’ line of reasoning was complete b.s. – it was me that would have to contend with the hangover. So, it’s super-easy to think things like – there is no self; there are just moments of self that are conditionally arising due to attaching to things out of ignorance. But are you still experiencing a sense of self? And does that sense of self seem real? Yeah, it does. It seems like the realest thing that there is. And all of this is besides the point – self is not the issue. The issue is attaching (tanha) to things that are of anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts off the top of my head. They are well-meaning, so I hope it’s taken in that spirit.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Moral values are constantly shifting but the way morality works always remains the same. Fundamentally, immorality is rooted in ignorance of how the world operates. That ignorance exists on two levels; mundane ignorance (for instance, thinking that there is no rebirth process and that the laws of kamma are b.s.), and ignorance of transcendent truths (i.e., the four ariya truths, paticca samuppada, and the three characteristics of nature). The more ignorant a person is, the more immoral they will have the capacity to be. The wiser a person is, the more moral they will likely be. We are collectively moulding the world, morphing and manipulating it due the actions that we take. We take those actions because of our values.
You provided some examples of currently relevant ethical concerns, like issues surrounding AI. Do we actually need AI though? Like really? I don’t think so. But people created it because they constantly crave for more and more and more. For a mindset that is corrupted by raga, dosa, and moha, nothing is ever enough. So, these ethical dilemmas wouldn’t exist in the first place were it not for the fact that we make them exist due to our own foolishness. Think about being a human – you have to make constant effort to maintain the body. As you age, you will have to make even more effort and it will become much more challenging to have your body remain in good health.
This complicated existence that we are living is a consequence of kamma that we generated, and we did so due to the fact that we value sensuality. It’s possible to have existences that are way, way simpler. And yet, here we are. Corrupted values leads to corrupted reality. So while from one perspective, it may seem as if the moral landscape is constantly changing, zoom out and you’ll see that it is all rooted in craving, aversion, and delusion, and their opposites.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think I concluded my previous post very well, so here goes – in addition to Jethavanarama Monastery, I also really like the teachings of Hillside Hermitage. With some of their videos, they knock the ball out of the park. But in certain key areas, they are (IMO) either wrong or not nearly as accurate as they could be. Clearly, that is not ideal. We live during a time where this is commonplace. We are all trying to figure this out as best as we can. That means thoroughly questioning what we think we know as well as the statements that others make.
Regarding the Dutiyamārapāsasutta that you cited, Jittananto, The Buddha says:
“Bikkhus, I am freed from all snares, both human and heavenly. You are also freed from all snares, both human and heavenly.“
He was talking to Arahants who have completed The Ariya Path and is saying that as a consequence, they are not only qualified to teach Buddha Dhamma, but that it would make sense for them to do so because they have done what needed to be done (i.e., attain Nibbana).
Jittananto, I read all of your posts and generally find your comments to be very insightful. With that being said, I don’t entirely agree with your position regarding this discussion. What is important is the intention behind our actions. If we were to criticize a group of monks and nuns and that endeavour were rooted in aversiveness, that would obviously be a bad thing to do. But if our intention is to sort our understanding out; to clarify whether or not what someone presents as being Buddha Dhamma matches up with how we see it, not only does that not constitute a demerit, it is absolutely critical.
I have searched far and wide and have yet to come across anything that is in the same ballpark as Waharaka Thero and Pure Dhamma. In my opinion, Jethavanarama Monastery is no exception. There are a lot of things that they get very right but they aren’t without their issues. To not be critical of those issues is to do a disservice to someone who is trying to attain Nibbana.
It has long surprised me that we discuss and reference them to the extent that we do. If you do a side-by-side comparision of Lal’s explanations and theirs with respect to the three characteristics of nature, they are simply not saying the same thing. Now, you could push back against that point by arguing they are explaining the same thing but from different angles – to which I would say that anicca is a particular way and by extension, there are a whole bunch of other ways in which it isn’t.
Lal, I tried to read the article that you linked to but the message “sorry, you are not allowed to preview drafts” appeared.
In my opinion, the best way that you can benefit your family is by commiting yourself to progressing as much as possible. In the early stages of the path, your progress won’t be very noticeable (if at all) to others. However, as you continue to progress, people who know you well will start to pick up on the fact that you are calmer and have fewer desires. They can subsequently be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. No guarantees though.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I thought it was funny! It seems to me that the average person is inclined to distract themselves with a constant stream of content and activity because they know that, in its absence, a gnawing sense of existential dread will emerge. This existential dread reveals that, fundamentally, they have no idea what is going on in life. Suffice it to say, that uncertainty is terrifying. As a result, the average person is very busy constructing and protecting their worldview and the beliefs that it is made up of. Honestly acknowledging to oneself that you don’t know what is happening in life requires a great deal of courage.
That is why, as far as I can tell, getting onto the path requires equal measures of open-mindedness and skepticism. Open-mindedness is essential because there may well be more to life than what meets the eye, and skepticism is necessary to begin appreciating the ways in which you may be deluding yourself.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Nope. Sorry but I disagree. You can’t rationalise your way to Nibbana in that way. It will more than likely just result in cognitive dissonance.
A mistake that a lot of people make is to try to perceive reality according to what they believe is true.
If someone were to tell themselves, “there is no doer, it’s all just causes and effects”, that will contradict how things appear within their immediate experience.
What is necessary is to instead investigate your experience and see whether any given premise passes the sniff test. If it does, then you investigate further. It’s an iterative process.
That description, as well as the extent of the emphasis, sounds similar to how a Mahayana Buddhist might describe sunnata and impress that principle upon a person.
If someone had only a couple of minutes to live and their dying wish was to learn about what the Buddha taught, I believe that an ariya would, without hesitation, explain the three characteristics of nature.
If instead they were to explain the principle of separation, I think it’s highly unlikely that the dying person would have a ‘jump out of the bathtub’ eureka moment.
I’m always wary when someone implies that “this is what the Buddha really taught.”
From their point of view, they are correct and have your best interests and heart. They likely think that you are misguided and want to point you in the right direction. Seeing things from other people’s perspectives can be challenging but goes a long way.
The best thing to do in those kinds of situations is to shrug your shoulders and agree to disagree before things turn sour.
1 user thanked author for this post.
My thoughts: If it were in the nature of things to change for the better, it wouldn’t matter if they were impermanent; a temporary existence in the deva loka would be succeeded by one in the rupa loka.
Before I discovered Buddha Dhamma, I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. It didn’t matter to me that the value I derived from that experience was temporary, as I could simply light up another cigarette.
If someone were to claim that Anicca means impermanence, I would ask them what the significance of things being impermanent is. If you need to ask follow-up questions when a person describes Anicca, then that isn’t a definition they are describing; at best, it’s an attribute. I see this happen a lot when people explain Pali terms.
I could add more, but I need to go to work! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, though.
2 users thanked author for this post.
No, because someone would feel ‘God’s love’ on account of taking the pancakkhanda as being of nicca, sukha, and atta nature. As such, they would also have micca ditthi. Therefore, expressing ‘God’s love’ to other beings, while moral in a conventional sense, would be lacking an understanding of the four ariya truths. A person could encourage others to live morally on the basis of thinking that doing so would result in salvation, and conduct themselves according to that principle. However, The Buddha taught that morality alone isn’t sufficient enough to address the fundamental issue with the world (i.e., sansara). So then, that wouldn’t constitute metta. By understanding that reality is characterised by anicca, dukkha, and anatta, that will inform how a person perceives others and subsequently engages with them.
To learn more about metta, you can read this article: https://puredhamma.net/bhavana-meditation/ariya-metta-bhavana/
3 users thanked author for this post.
