Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but this concept really doesn’t make any sense to me. For me, how comprehensible the Dhamma being taught is to the audience at hand is of paramount importance, not the method in which it is delivered.
I say this because I listened to countless desanas as a monk and as a layman and, while I felt that they were beneficial, I never felt like I had made significant progress until I discovered Pure Dhamma and read about concepts like san, gandhabba, the difference between bhava and jati, the true meaning of Tilakkhana, dukkha and all of the etymological break downs of Pali words and their relationship to the Sinhala language. The clarity and understanding I felt from reading about these things was immediate and intense, far greater than anything I’d experienced from listening.
@Lal
Could the fact that I was ordained during the time I absorbed all of this information be another factor to consider? How significant of a role would it play in accelerating one’s progress and also, is it possible to bypass that need to physically hear a sound to attain magga phala if one is absorbing Dhamma while one is ordained?
This is a new bit of information for me, and also very intriguing and intricate.
The reason I gave my own take was because in my experience – although I’ve read a lot of Dhamma material and listened to a many desansas from different monks as well as Lal’s own talks – I’ve always felt that my strongest revelations and feelings of niramisa sukha came from things that I read, rather than the talks that I listened to.
That’s not to say that I prefer one method of learning over the other, but that’s just how it seemed to work out for me personally.
In my experience I don’t think it matters much. I feel I’ve received benefits from not only listening to recorded talks but also from reading explanations and talks that have been recorded, translated and written down into books. The thing that is most important is that the mind is able to understand the concept being explained.
Thanks guys
Firewns
No worries, I’m not frustrated. I see that these discussions can get pretty technical and different people latch onto different details. Some of the time I read threads on here and see the discussions start to veer away from the original topic, so I wanted to make sure I was clear. I surely appreciate the input.
I see, that makes sense. Thank you!
I hope my folks just pass away peacefully with no complications. Ha!
Firewns,
No offense, but I think you are on a completely different page from what I’m talking about. I was looking for more clarification concerning the outcome of a specific set of actions in a specific situation, based on variables of intention, context/conditions and cause and effect results of certain actions. You seem to be talking about a more generalized moral dilemma.
In the post “What is Intention in Kamma?“ there are two examples given; one where Person X shoots and kills his father at night, mistakenly believing his father to be an intruder in X’s home, and a second example where Person X is repairing his roof, throws something heavy from the top of the roof and the object accidently hits and kills X’s father who happens to be standing below, unbeknownst to Person X. In the first example an akusala anantariya kamma is committed but in the second example there is none since it was an accident.
Bearing this in mind and applying it to your example, I’d think there would be no akusala anantariya kamma committed if the driver ran over either one of the arahants on the tracks because his only intention was to do his job and get his passengers to where they needed to go. He would have had no way of knowing there would be an arahant in his path on the way to the destination. Alternatively, if he chose to derail the train then that would be an intentional action possibly resulting in the deaths of all the passengers. And – unbeknownst to the driver – there could be Ariyas among them, similar to the situation in the first example given above.
Concerning the case of putting parents on life support, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that it’s a kusala kamma but I don’t think it makes a very big difference in the end; the parents’ quality years are behind them, their physical and mental faculties are degraded and thus they don’t have the ability to do meritorious deed or develop their minds. On the other hand, if it were a situation where a person’s parents still had many years of life ahead of them but were very sick and could only recover with the aid of a life support system then of course providing that for them would be a much stronger kusala kamma. You would be giving them the opportunity to continue living, do more good deeds and even learn and comprehend Dhamma, if they chose to do so.
Lal,
Thank you for these links, they do help to clarify a bit more. My confusion wasn’t about the concept of what is or isn’t an akusala anantariya kamma; I know that the workings of kamma is a complex subject. I was hoping to shed some light on the specific situation I was describing. The monk that I mentioned (the abbot) was adamant that a person must not “pull the plug” on an aging parent who is on life support and that doing so constitutes an akusala anantariya kamma and the person will go to Avecii hell. I’m not sure if he also meant that you must unequivocally put an aging parent on life support, because sometimes things get lost in translation between us. I disagree with him that either action constitutes an akusala anantariya kamma for 2 reasons:
1) the intention isn’t to kill and
2) there isn’t anyone doing any real “killing”; the person on life support is going to die on their own due to natural causes and their life is being prolonged in an unnatural way
Ultimately I suppose it’s just a niggling question that may not be possible to answer in a way that is 100% precise, and the noble thing to do is to take care of the person for as long as possible.
Hello everyone
Sorry to see this so late. I’m glad somebody made this thread since this is a topic that came up once in a discussion between myself and another monk and I still had some unresolved questions on the matter.
I had a specific question about the issue of a dying parent being placed on or removed from life support; Does it count as an anantariya kamma if
1) a person chooses not to place a dying parent on life support or
2) if the person chooses to cease giving life support to a dying parent?
To be more technical about it, in the former case isn’t the person simply making a choice to not interfere with the natural outcome of the parent’s life and thus not creating any new kamma vipaka, thus no anantariya kamma? And in the latter case the isn’t the person deciding to STOP DOING a given action (continuing the life support) and allowing the parent die of natural causes? The person is not COMMITTING a deliberate action TOWARD the parent that TAKES or SHORTENS the parent’s life in an unnatural or violent way. The death of parent is inevitable and in both instances no deliberate harmful action is done against the parent and there is no hateful javana citta involved in any way. This is my perspective on the situation, but if I am mistaken then I’d appreciate being set straight.
I thought it was a question worth bringing up since many of us could face this situation one day, and it would be a difficult and painful ordeal for the parent and the child.
Thanks
Thank you. Yes, I’ve been on nirvanadhamma.com before. In the past I’d searched to see if I could find any information about Waharaka Thero in English, and nirvanadhamma was the all I could find other than puredhamma.net.
I suppose the the Dhamma interpretations as taught by Bhante Waharaka and Lal have not had a chance spread much outside of Sri Lanka?
Hi drs8
I myself am familiar with the Thai Forest tradition and read Ajahn Mun’s biography, albeit several years ago. I share your feelings inasmuch that I feel that many of the Thai forest ajahns are fully enlightened (or at least highly attained Ariyas) and many of their teachings resonated with me in the past, but I don’t completely agree with (or understand) some their explanations of Dhamma. One of the issues for me was that many of the Dhutanga monks seemed larger than life as there are many anecdotes about their fantastic exploits through the harsh jungles, abhinna powers and ascetic lifestyles that an ordinary person will probably never experience personally, let alone live up to. I felt that things like jhanas, forest austerities, abhinna powers, etc. were over-emphasized while there were not enough clear explanations about Dhamma. It wasn’t until I came across the monks Ajahn Buddhadasa, Acariya Thoon Khippapanyo and finally PureDhamma that I felt that I had some real clarity. It was Acariya Thoon in particular that really struck a chord with me. In his books he would repeatedly emphasize the need for WISDOM and correct understanding as opposed to attaining deep states of meditative absorption and repeatedly asks where in the Tipitaka it says that “[such and such an individual attained such and such jhana and then became a stream enterer, or an anagami]” or what have you. It doesn’t. He would go on to say that in almost all of the suttas it describes individuals attaining Path Knowledge upon listening to a discourse or being given some kind of lesson, and not all Ariyas were great meditation masters. I think the confusion set in because Ajahn Mun and many of his disciples were very accomplished meditators and practiced the forest austerities to a high degree, so that made it seem like those things were essential to making progress when, in reality, they don’t necessarily have anything to do with UNDERSTANDING Dhamma.
That being said, I don’t think you should throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. If there are teachings from the Thai ajahns that still make sense to you then you shouldn’t throw them out completely just because you don’t agree with every single thing they say. On the other hand, if you feel that you’ve really outgrown them then I think it’s okay to move on.
Something to bear in mind when reading Dhamma books of Thai ajahns; most of these books aren’t actually written by the monks themselves, but are English translations of sermons that the monks originally spoke in Thai. It’s important to take what’s said with a grain of salt and take into consideration things like cultural context, the audience being spoken to, speaking meaning versus a literal English translation and so on. In the case of Luang Por Chah describing Anicca as “not sure” his meaning probably wasn’t that if someone hits you then pain isn’t a sure thing, but more likely that he meant “not sure” as something like “not reliable”, “not dependable”, or “not sustainable”, which is much closer to the real meaning of Anicca. He most likely wanted people to understand that it’s not a sure thing that things will stay the same forever. That’s the part that’s “not sure”.
For anyone who is interested, the explanation that drs8 provided of the Four Noble Truths is a quote from the book “Gifts He Left Behind”, a collection of short quotes, discussions and anecdotes of the monk Luang Pu Dune. This is what I think he meant by each statement:
- “The mind sent outside is the origination of suffering”
He is probably describing Tanha, i.e. the mind going “outside” and chasing after things, desiring or craving for them.
- “The result of the mind sent outside is the origination of suffering.”
Basically the same as the first statement. People suffer as they are agitated by their cravings for things in the world, run into obstacles in an attempt to acquire these things, create bad kamma if they do immoral things to get what they desire or are disappointed if they get what they want but it doesn’t meet their expectations or last as long as they’d like it to.
- “The mind seeing the mind is the path.”
He is probably referring to the mind dismantling cravings by contemplating and observing how such cravings arise due to cause and effect,(i.e. how a certain craving is the CAUSE for future suffering) thus unraveling the kilesas and slowly freeing oneself from dukkha.
- “The result of the mind seeing the mind is cessation of suffering.”
Same as the previous statement. As an individual’s understanding of the cause and effect relationship between craving and suffering grows, the idea of craving things will become more nonsensical or absurd. The mind will lose interest in it and as a result one will be free of the suffering that naturally follows such cravings.
Hi Rhys
Having been spent a good amount time around a Thai monastery on and off for years I would have to agree with you about this stereotype. Of course, I don’t believe there is any truth to it since I’ve seen laypeople with a lot sincerity who seem to grasp Dhamma concepts intuitively without being familiar with a lot of Pali terminology, suttas, Vinaya rules, etc. as well as laypeople and monks who have encyclopedic knowledge of such things and yet don’t seem to “get it”.
I was ordained as a novice for a while and I can attest that the monastic life definitely accelerated my understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. It’s my personal belief that the Buddha set up the monastic form to FORCE his disciples to see the world form a different perspective; the correct perspective or Samma Ditthi. When you undertake the 10 precepts and are forced to depend on other people to take care of you then you start to think much more about the consequences of every little action you may or may not do. As a result, the Three Characteristics (especially Anatta) start to become more clear. One of the problems with the layperson’s life is that it allows us to deceive ourselves into believing that we can be self sufficient; it “covers up” the Dhamma, so to speak. So it’s not that a layperson can’t attain a magga phala, only that it’s more difficult to do given the nature of that mode of living. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is a person’s mind and wisdom therein. Since that varies from person to person I don’t think it’s possible to make any kind of predictions as far as Path Attainment is concerned; some people may have accumulated a lot of merit and paramita from previous lives and will make smooth and consistent progress whereas others may have the good fortune to ordain but will struggle with sense desires or lack of an ability to develop insight.
I don’t think even most lay Buddhists understand what is at stake when it comes to escaping sansara; they don’t have a clear grasp of the larger picture that the Buddha was trying to explain to so they are unaware of the potential dangers that come with simply existing. They take their good birth as a given. And without being given a clear explanation of the Buddha’s Dhamma, what reason would there be for them to think otherwise? I used to be in the same boat before I came across Lal’s website; sometimes I would read anecdotes about certain Ajaans ripping into their disciples for being half-hearted or doubting urgency of their situation and I’d think “What’s the big deal? Don’t we have an infinite amount of time to wander through the rebirth process?” After reading Lal’s concise explanations on how sansara, kamma, rebirth etc. all work together and how rare a human birth during a Buddha Sasana is, it became clear to me what the “big deal” was. I think the fact that you would bring up the question of “sansaric dread” shows that you have a better understanding of Dhamma than the average lay Buddhist.
Yes I posted something, then edited it and tried to post it again. I figured it might show up eventually, but oh well.
Anyway, basically what I said was that it seems to me you’re interpreting the sutta as saying that ANY and ALL actions done by a person who holds one or more wrong views will ultimately be bad, but I don’t think that is the case. In my opinion, interpreting it that way is too much of a sweeping generalization. Instead, I think the sutta is making a very specific statement; any kamma that is undertaken “IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT [wrong] VIEW” will lead to what is undesired.
So that doesn’t mean that a person who happens to a hold a wrong view is totally incapable of doing good deeds or that genuine good deeds done by that person won’t bring good results. Like in your example of a doctor, it may be the case that a person with a materialist’s outlook on the world might still help others out of a genuine sense of altruism. I think it’s possibe that such good actions may have another root cause that is unrelated to their materialistic viewpoint, since all people have a mixture of lobha/dosa/moha and alobha/adosa/amoha.
But a person who undertakes an action with a micca ditthi as the fundamental motivating factor for that action will end up with what is undesirable. In extreme cases (like Lal’s suicide bomber example), actions born out of such wrong views wouldn’t be considered good deeds anyway; there would be no gray area. But since most people’s actions aren’t that extreme and all people have a mixture of good and bad gathi then the “genuine goodness” of certain actions in certain situations can become ambiguous. For this reason I think it’s a very complex issue to try and determine how karmically fruitful a given action is by trying to precisely pinpoint what sort of world view the action might have arisen from.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that any Ariya will still have minor wrong views about what is and isn’t good to do until they reach the Arahant level, because until that point Samma Ditthi is still incomplete?
