Buddhism vs. The World

[@UstogljenaKrofna]

Why are people in the comments upset by this? If Ajahn told you that it's impossible to hold a UFC heavyweight championship belt and simultaneously be a F1 driver champion you wouldn't think twice about it. Yet when he says that you can't practice for complete abandonment while taking up more passion you get argumentative and start questioning his compassion and requesting more "metta". This is the ultimate form of compassion. Hearing what we need to and not necessarily what we'd like to.

[@cariyaputta]

Yeah, cognitive dissonance on display.

[@yewcookies]

I'm always reminded of Albert Schweitzer's intro to "The Quest for the Historical Jesus". He makes this point that when people look for the historical Jesus they often behave like people looking into a deep well; to their surprise and joy the face they see in the bottom perfectly reflects their own. I think the same is true for many Western Buddhists (of which I'm included).

[@user-bl3ct4jh2e]

In Thailand, over 80% of the forests have been cut down. An elder Thai Forest monk was asked: What will we do when all the forests are gone? The answer: We will become monks of the desert.

[@bkhpanigha]

A crucial point that's often overlooked is that what the Buddha actually praised and encouraged was _boundless_ metta and karuna, and this is incompatible with activism. "Changing the world" almost always involves creating suffering for _somebody_ who wasn't suffering before, no matter how many end up benefitting the end, and you will be responsible for generating that new suffering if your attempts succeed. And the attempt itself is already rooted in a bias, as justified as you may think it is. Thus, ironically, the modern idea of compassion and "engaged Buddhism" is rooted in taking the idea of karuna only to the limited extent that it fits with one's circumstantial, emotions, preferences, and ideals of "justice" (i.e., biases). Practice of the true brahmaviharas inevitably results in complete non-involvement when it comes to worldly matters (keeping in mind that equanimity/indifference, _not_ compassion, is the highest and most refined of all four). The only form of societal "engagement" that can remain for an expanded, boundless mind is teaching the Dhamma to those who are willing to hear it. And the already fully-awakened Buddha did not want to do _even that_ initially, considering that most people are too intoxicated with sense pleasures and with existence in general to be able to understand. What is then to be said of unawakened ordinary people who can't even see through their own defilements, and yet think they should prioritize helping others and building up worldly conditions over liberating themselves.

[@theinngu5560]

Well expressed …thanks

[@Erik-S-]

Well said

[@emperorpalpatine9841]

This one is going to make many people upset, since many Western Buddhists I’ve met are usually using Buddhism as a rationalizing of their pre-existing activist beliefs.

[@zephyrr108]

Indeed. Also they defend "engaged buddhism" which to me was always a distortion of the teachings.

[@tonyt1551]

So true

[@Coral-h4c1]

I had a similar experience of someone justifying attachment over nibbana, which doesn't make sense if a person is a buddhist

[@j.m.kocsis2557]

So well taught. As a layperson, it brings me joy to listen to the Ajahns’ teaching on this topic and on self-transparency in general.

[@Phlogiston-0]

A very logical, analytical interpretation of the Dhamma providing much wholesome food for reflection, by an ajahn dedicated to becoming an arahant. There are equally plausible interpretations from other Theravada ajahns who maintain that engagement with the world and practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is possible for lay people. As a puthujjana, my practice has a more modest goal than arahantship. I seek only to relieve my own and others suffering in whatever way I can, guided by my albeit limited knowledge and understanding of the teachings. I acknowledge both my ignorance and delusion but have conviction that it is possible to work with the little insight I possess to ameliorate my benighted state. I appreciate that I am an anulamikaya khantiya samanannagate but I strive on nonetheless.

[@theinngu5560]

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Brilliant and very clear. Thank you so much. ‘Even if you do manage to help the whole world, it will change after you die and it will be a mess ( of suffering) again. This is samsara’

[@venerablemettaji6944]

Thank you for the constant integrity and depth of truth in the Teachings.SADHU.

[@Roland-zh3sk]

Its so hard for me not to want a better world. Its like driving a car while braking at the same time. I am desperate. Can't do this nor that properly. In limbo.

[@KittySN]

I was just thinking about this this past week. Departure is ultimate. It's departure from the idea and practice of departure as well.

[@DumindaW]

Thank you Bhante🙏, clears up many doubts of the mind🙏

[@hometest-1579]

How can it both be the case that 1) we can’t start neutral, we always start the practice with attachment and b) in order to start even basic mindfulness practice we have fully get rid of attachment to anything worldly first?

[@kuznecoffjames]

1. Because the ignorance is inherent to your experience. There was not a time where you weren’t ignorant and then gained ignorance. If you were not ignorant (you saw the true nature of phenomena on the right level), it would be impossible for ignorance to regain its footing. 2. A lot of meditation practices are based in subtle aversion. For instance if you do a sitting meditation at the start of the day “so that the day runs more smoothly”, you are subtly trying to control your future emotional state which implies ownership over said emotions, which is the opposite of anatta. As for mindfulness, it goes hand in hand with maintaining context. If you maintain the context that phenomena are subject to change without your consent and that they will cause you suffering if you cling to them, then you will not regard them as mine (not self, anatta). The result is dispassion, which is the opposite of being overly absorbed in sense-objects, hence mindfulness.

[@hometest1219]

@@kuznecoffjames that doesn't resolve incongruency between the two. In order to get rid of attachment to anything wordly you ALREADY have to do the practice correctly, so how can it be a condition to start the practice? There seems to be 2 answers. Commentaries say that this is a temporary act of letting go attachment. On the other hand HH would probably say that this is why Anapanasati requires stream entry, so different practice is needed until one is able to get rid of the basic sensual attachment.

[@ClearMountainWay]

The buddha clearly taught veyyāvacca (service/helpful activity), dāna (generosity/giving), saṃvibhāga (sharing/distribution), patisanthāra (hospitality/welcoming), mettā (loving-kindness), karuṇā (compassion), and puñña (merit). You're speaking to ONE aspect of the discussion of "worldly activity", which is fine, as it's important distinction. But one would be doing this audience a disservice if they hear this and leave thinking the buddha was advocating indifference to suffering or simply a selfish pursuit of nibanna in response to the impulse to "fight for this world" when he didn't. I feel its better put as a compassionate pursuit of nibbana, which doesn't imply a turning away from worldly suffering. The key distinction is with what cetanās one is engaging with the world. Even for monks the Buddha admonished those ignoring the plight of their fellow monks (see Mv 8.26). Cheers! 🙏

[@HillsideHermitage]

Not quite. The Buddha never taught any of those things or making merit as a means of pursuing nibbana. As for *metta* and *karuna* that you mentioned, according to the early suttas, these are very different practices from modern ideas of "loving-kindness" and "compassion." Even for the sake of argument, if we take them to simply mean spreading love to others and feeling compassion for other people's suffering, at no point do such instructions require INVOLVEMENT with them or their worldly affairs. You are absolutely right: nibbana is a compassionate pursuit, as it is the highest goal that humankind can strive for, as the video says. As the suttas often mention, practicing for nibbana is practicing for one's own welfare and the welfare of others. That practice begins by abandoning any and all involvement with worldly problems, internally and externally, which, to an untrained eye, can appear highly selfish. Even the Buddha, while still bodhisatta, had to make such a choice and couldn't do both. What, then, can be said for everyone else? And in SN 4.20, when the thought occurred to him whether one could rule the world solely through justice and righteousness, he immediately recognized it as Mara's doing and rejected it. And that was *after* his full enlightenment. So, if he, having already attained nibbana and fulfilled the final goal of freedom from samsara, still rejected addressing the world's injustices because they were Mara's trap, what, then, can be said about everyone else who is still striving toward that goal?

[@ClearMountainWay]

​@@HillsideHermitage thank you for the response. You have points i agree with and points i disagree with. But dont take offense to my counter-points, my goal is to enrich the discussion which as I stated above I feel is an important one. Theres agreement that nekhamma is the direction of the 8FNP. But not everyone is going to achieve arhantship in this lifetime. Only by changing the scale of time buddha spoke of things with does the entire hundreds of references of kamma and merit become not worth even mentioning. I think instead of presenting this in terms of a dichotomy its better to present it in scales or degrees of fruitfulness as is done in AN 9.20, AN 7.54, MN 142 or AN 4.51. When the buddha provides a complexity of approach i feel its the right thing to note that. That way on a grand scale we not lose sight of what will benefit those not yet at a place where you all are in your level of adhiṭṭhāna. Cheers. 🙏

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Regarding the Mv 8.26, you say: _"Buddha admonished those ignoring the plight of their fellow monks"_ and this is true of course, but it's important to understand this in its right place. The reason behind this is more of a simple practicality than anything Dhamma-related. Monks live in a community after all, so it's only reasonable that they help each other when things get really rough, but that should not be confused with the Dhamma practice. And Buddha never advised monks to go do those things to householders, because that could very easily take them away from their main goal. Household life (and various worldly activisms) is full of snares. Another thing: Saṅgha, first and foremost, is a convenience for those who practice for Liberation, not a family (which is a form of emotional bondage).

[@ClearMountainWay]

​@@stefanvidenovic5095 Regarding that mahavagga passage, I gave that as an example just to counterbalance the suttapitaka references as the dhamma as I approach it should never be looked at in isolation. You're correct that it has nothing to do with applying that specific type of care with lay practitioners because there's all sorts of other rules that guide activity between lay and monastic. It's referenced because I'm addressing myself to monastics who would immediately recognize the bhāvanā qualities the Buddha continually pointed to even within that relatively secluded context. Snares are not just in worldly activisms. As they know, snares can follow you or find you in a monastary as well. But my random comment was concerned less with monastic order than what is presented in all of these other contexts of practice. Care for the other is enunciated as a principle throughout the suttas as a mutually self-reinforcing activity care for ones own development leads to the protection of others, care for others leading to the protection of self. c.f SN 47.19 or SA619.

[@ClearMountainWay]

@@stefanvidenovic5095 Mv 8.26 was cited just to contrast with sutta references so that its clear that I'm not simply speaking upon these qualities just from the standpoint of the suttapitaka. Snares and hindrances exist both in "worldly" circumstances as well on monastic ones. 🙏

[@garrettpeters2547]

So many western “Buddhists” need to hear this teaching.

[@zephyrr108]

Indeed 💯💯💯

[@wordscapes5690]

Actually, speaking as an “eastern” Buddhist, this attitude is not only a western thing. A great many Mahayana Buddhists get actively involved in defending, helping, and assisting those in need of protection.

[@Same-l3d]

Western Buddhist teachers are in general completely lost teaching the exact opposite of what the Buddha taught

[@kzantal]

Thank you! 🙏

[@josephoutward]

Interesting. Thanks.

[@daruman8265]

Thanks so much for the teaching - i benefit a lot! I currently live in a Buddhist country and clearly vast majority of monks live on donation of laity and the state (i.e. taxes paid by citizens). Isn't it hypocritical for me to lead the life detached from worldliness, i.e. society, whilst im being totally dependent on this society? It's not the critisims of the position stated in the video, but i would really like to know your position on it....

[@HillsideHermitage]

Presumably, since it's a Buddhist country, people there believe in rebirth and merit. So, if you are practicing rightly, and make yourself "worthy of offerings" as the Suttas say, then you are repaying all of them manifold. If, on the other hand, you are not dedicated towards the practice for complete enlightenment, then you'd be incurring a debt even if people don't support you that much.

[@daruman8265]

@HillsideHermitage thank you so much for a prompt response. I need to ponder on it more. I can just add a note that whilst they believe in merit to some extent, their "Buddhism" is in fact, a bunch of susperstitions, and they go to temples simply in hope of getting merit and subsequently a material gain. It's not much different than in Christian countries, I guess.Thanks again for your response....

[@daruman8265]

@HillsideHermitage Thank you very much for the response . I will ponder on this...

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Funny thing about fighting to protect something/someone is that in the very next life you will most likely not even remember any of that, let alone have access to it. But if you acted out of those strong emotions, those will shape your mind (the only thing you keep throughout lives). And as for kamma-vipāka part, there will be both good and bad consequences. Probably a good model here to consider is how Kings ended up in the Suttas eventually - they would both end up in hell (for violence ordered against perpetrators) and heaven (for saving the ones in need) in whatever order...

[@Coral-h4c1]

Keeping in mind that "I will die" giving up the possibility of full arahantship is an unpleasant prospect. What difference do all the material and non-material things make if I will die I wonder what Ajahn has to say about monks being supported by lay community

[@quasisentient8970]

I think intent matters: "It is volition, bhikkhus, that I call karma; for having willed, one acts by body, speech, and mind." "Cetanā Sutta" (AN 6.63) from the Anguttara Nikaya.

[@StanleyFamilyFun]

The problem with fighting for justice is u don’t realize there will never have lasting justice

[@Same-l3d]

Bingo. Any justice you fight for or even win will always revert back and happen again. It’s like trying to stop the sun from coming up

[@brianl9419]

Thank you 🙏

[@laurentiusogor1572]

Wonderful 🙏🏼 sadhu sadhu sadhu 🙏🏼

[@legendofpanigale]

Thank you Bhante

[@zorananda]

Not one buddhist tradition in the world teaches the Dhamma in regards to those questions in such a consequent manner as Ajahn NM. From my point of view all those traditions clearly disqualify.

[@Sinistral-c5g]

Hello. Neutral feeling cam be experienced pleasantly or unpleasantly. Pleasant feeling is unpleasant etc. This confuses me. How can that be the case? So it's possible to have a pleasant feeling but suffer?

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Yes, when there's pleasure you always want it to stay longer, i.e. you crave for it. And craving is suffering (though in this case much less than in the pain case). And this is not a direct deliberate choice but a result of habit (of craving). Also, note that this does not mean you want the particular object of pleasure to stay longer, but the feeling itself, the mind does not have much of a problem to switch objects when they stop providing the pleasure.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Vedana:: Pleasant feeling reinforces greed, unpleasant feeling reinforces hate, neutral (uncertain) feelings reinforce fear. All three flavors lead to craving - clinging - becoming - birth of that which is experienced as "me, mine", which is dukkha. Not reacting with Vedana to a sensory contact eliminates craving & clinging and without these two that which is experienced arises (is born) in consciousness just the way it is and not as "me, mine". When "me, mine" (i.e self - selfishness) doesn't arise, Dukkha doesn't arise.

[@zanthar7782]

in vajrayana we are taught to use upaya to liberate the way of beings both in the wordly and spiritual planes, to be envolved with the material world is transformed into the very spiritual practice itself, thus recognising the pure essence underlying the mundane appearance, not ignoring the material world nor the spiritual in a divine intertwining of wisdom and skill

[@Subtledrop]

I think this goes hand in hand with the misunderstanding that metta is something that can be done (usually on top of preexisting ill will) rather than the result of removing the basis for the arising of ill will. Even if your goal is to be good to others, you should practice to uproot greed, hatred and delusion, since all evil actions you could do in this life and the next would be rooted in at least one those states. I know I would never kill a person or an animal in this life, but if I don't get out of samsara, I can't guarantee that I won't devolve throughout my future lives and end up harming a lot of beings. It feels more important to guarantee that I will never harm others again than to try to stop other people from harming each other temporarily.

[@Sinistral-c5g]

How should death be contemplated? The ending of sight, hearing, taste, smell, tactile or bodily sensation with the mind sense (mano) remaining. Can this limbo state last for a while

[@garyhaywood1361]

Seems to me, that processing our actions by saying we have a choice means we are already in attachment. The attachment to non-attachment is going unrecognised. So much action in inaction.

[@ptanji]

Clear

[@StanleyFamilyFun]

Good morning dhamma family

[@Erik-S-]

Thank you Bhante for teaching the real Dhamma in a time of great pollution of the Dhamma.

[@HappyMutantSpeaks]

I like how Tibetan translators rendered arhat as something like "for destroyer." From that perspective our only enemies are the hinderances or greed, aversion, and delusion. I think you really can do positive things in the world while being aligned with the dharma. But, your focus has to be on these true enemies as opposed to being lost in the conflict that taking either side of a given issue usually entails.

[@Diomedes99]

It’s made me curious as to the Buddhist perspective on free will. Side note: Buddhism here in America has a couple of strains and in the liberal white western zen strain it’s become seemingly political and focused on politics based on compassion. For me it’s about balance. I don’t want to leave the world completely behind, but I do see the benefits of the teaching as practical. If it takes me to the monastery that’s fine. If it takes me to the home and allows me to disconnect from samsara I’m fine with that too. I wouldn’t expect suffering to disappear because it seems like it’s a part of the whole. It ends and the cycle continues. For me detachment and choosing to lessen the ability of suffering to control my life are the most important.

[@johncasarino5627]

I am not american but by pointing the finger at the quote 'liberals' you yourself have admitted your immense political concerns, this is pot calling the kettle black, can you american's please just go away with your politics.

[@banisteriopsiscaapi6446]

The going in politics will be like in abrahamic religions, deeper and deeper till the religion will be only about politics.

[@CD-kl1dn]

Very good to hear, thanks Bhantes

[@456mjb]

This sounds apathetic to me. If everyone adopted this view we wouldn’t have stopped slavery, the Holocaust, etc. and we would abandon law enforcement, medical treatment, etc. Theravada monks benefit from non-monks’ compassionate actions in the world.Does Mahayana share his pov?

[@Matrix2458]

As far as I know, the Mahayana is opposed to this way of thinking and Bodhisattva should use the material world as a tool to liberate countless beings, without attachment or non-attachment. In my opinion, this way of thinking is an attempt to disconnect from the material world, while the Mahayana balance between Samsara and Nirvana, not firmly standing in either. It's not possible to completely disconnect from the world, because it is not separate from our reality. The heart sutra and diamond sutra stress these points. To liberate all beings, we need to walk through samsara as the buddha does, but without attachment. Like standing on top of muddy water. The thervadas attempts to escape the mud without realizing the mud is the root which we are built from. We have to be interconnected with the beings in this realm to liberate them and that interconnection, compassion, and wisdom means creating organizations and systems of charity that help people meet their basic needs, their emotional needs, and ultimately their spiritual needs that will lead them to ultimate liberation. Giving gifts without thought of the gift, giver, or recipient to push the current towards liberation. In my opinion, someone like MLK is a boddhisatva because while not inherently buddhist, he led countless beings to liberation through spiritual teachings and also by uplifting the material conditions of countless people. Material improvements often lead to stability that lead to spiritual improvements. The spiritual is what is ultimately real because the material is constructed from the spiritual, but the material can be used as a tool to uplift and cultivate wisdom in countless beings. In this perspective, ending slavery and the holocaust are good, because they lead to material improvements. Of course these things are good, to try to argue that these events are neutral or meaningless is insane.

[@456mjb]

At the same time, the Buddha is said to have abandoned his son and wife…

[@wordscapes5690]

@@Matrix2458Correct. In fact, many would argue that the more advanced practitioner can become deeply involved without becoming entangled and still remaining compassionate AND passionate.

[@paramii_7251]

From what I understood from the discussion, if EVERYONE adopted this view, holocaust or slavery wouldn't occur in the first place. Law enforcement or medical treatment wouldn't be needed either. Prioritizing one or the other as Ajahn said, if one chooses the lay life, then there is a different set of values they are advised to be adopted to live a virtuous fulfilling life. And those teachings do contain to help others, spread kindness and look after the old and sick individuals and more. But if someone chooses to free themselves from samsara, there is only one path. And that has nothing to do with wordly affairs. So the view one must adopt boils down to their choice I suppose.

[@benjaminmiller3075]

But...we didn't stop any of those things They happened

[@chadkline4268]

I don't agree. If a boulder rolled down a mountain, the Buddha would make an effort to get out of its path. An effort to defend one's freedom+health is not engaging Samsara. To say otherwise is ridiculous. A monk is allowed to strike with a blow to free himself from a difficult situation. Sacrificing one's life to benefit an oppressor is nonsense at any level. No proper view ought benefit evil at the expense of non evil. I once asked a KZbin monk if a parent should kill a wild animal that was about to kill his child, and the monk said no. He said the parent should allow the animal to eat his child. People that claim to know Buddhist values many times know nothing at all. We're not born to be the sacrifice for others. No spiritual teacher ever said natural law does not apply. It is a duty to sustain health+freedom. Not a sensual desire. Not a darkness to avoid. There is a difference between sensual desire and stupid. Walking to the edge of a cliff and stopping is not a matter of sensual desire. It's just proper. Similarly, if one falls into a river, swimming instead of drowning is not a matter of sensual desire. Similarly, removing an obstruction to your freedom+health regardless of its form. The least harmful way is the most beneficial, but that is not an option in all cases. The path to freedom does not include sacrificing freedom or the body, within bounds of natural law. That was the whole purpose of the Buddha leaving bodily harming ascetic practices behind for the Middle path: Neither indulge the body in pleasures, nor harm the body in sacrifice. There is a duty to maintain health+freedom in support of the path. Being a coward is a sensual desire. Being a martyr is no virtue.

[@Matrix2458]

Well said, the middle path means not indulging in the material world, but not avoiding or ignoring it's effects or interconnections. So often the way of thinking shown in this video is a way for monks to neglect the material world and those beings in it that need compassion, wisdom, and charity. It's easy to neglect a baby crying for his mother if you convince yourself the baby doesn't exist. But it does, and it doesn't. It does, and it doesn't. I think the wisdom of this video needs to be balanced with the compassion of your way of thinking. You can't convince a baby that he doesn't exist or even worse you can't convince a baby that his parents should have never had him because they're poor and that's actually why he's suffering. You have to love the baby, give him warmth and food and love, and most importantly, wisdom. But there is no wisdom without compassion, none at all.

[@xenocrates2559]

Thanks for your clarity. Very inspiring.

[@TM-me3ct]

I know you tend to approach things from a more early Buddhist/Theravadin perspective, do you have any familiarity with the Mahayana perspective and the desire to become a Bodhisattva? From that point of view one practices for the liberation of all beings, and such compassionate motivation can be a skillful means by which one attains liberation (Of course, liberation in this context is liberation from Samsara and not compassionate activity in a worldly sense). Is this contradictory with your perspective? Also are you familiar with the dhamma teachings of Rob Burbea? I would be very curious about your thoughts on his explication of emptiness and how one realizes it, though no worries if you have no time or reason to address this! Thank you Ajahn!

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

One major problem with Bodhisattva goal is that people think it's enough to just decide that that's what they want to do and then it will happen for sure, across all lifetimes, while one doesn't even remember the very previous life and all the things that one wanted then... How they can count on this is beyond me... While Arahantship is achievable in this very lifetime and you can still have many years left to help and teach others, heck, you can even start right after Sotāpatti. Also, I think you have to actually meet the current Buddha during his lifetime to become a Bodhisatta, and that seat is already taken by Metteyya, though I'm not sure if this is canon...

[@Matrix2458]

@@stefanvidenovic5095 Consciousness is what projects material reality, so by focusing and meditating on emptiness and various mantras and the thought of liberating all beings (while understanding that once all beings are liberated its as if none were), we can cultivate the boddhisattva way of thinking. It's not just deciding it, it's cultivating karma through thoughts, words and actions. Emptiness is a seed with infinite potential that is totally and fully complete, so if we tap into that, it transcends one lifetime, space and time. It's only within emptiness that a boddhisatva can liberate countless beings. If one gears himself for the liberation of all beings across countless lifetimes, the meaningless distinctions of life and death don't affect them as they are not attached to them. Who's to say that an Ahran could achieve enlightenment in this lifetime only to be born as the ignorant child he ignored in the next lifetime. It's only through interconnections and the liberation of all beings that true peace and freedom from suffering can be attained/not attained. All beings flow into boddhisattvas and buddhas as water flows towards the ocean. By doing so, we accept the reality we live (right understanding), we don't try to escape it (right intention through no aversion/no personal desire), and we align ourselves in ways to liberate all beings in the infinite nature of time, space, and consciousness (right occupation/speech/action/effort/mindfulness/concentration).

[@zdrs_in_dvom]

@TM-me3ct I'm not affiliated with the Venerables but I've been engaging with their teachings more closely for about 2 years now. I have some familiarity with Burbea's teachings (I read Seeing that Frees 4 years ago or so, skimmed through a practice report and a few comments on reddit by someone who worked with his imaginal stuff), so, while you wait for a possible response from the Ven., I'll give this a try. I think the two teachings are pretty incompatible. The main point that the HH Venerables would take issue with, in my view, is that Burbea does not emphasise withdrawal from sensuality as the prerequisite for developing understanding. At least from what I'm aware of, he never stressed keeping the 8 precepts as the standard of virtue. The suttas are clear about that (and further development like sense restraint, withdrawal from the hindrances) being a necessary condition for insight. So this alone would make Burbea's teachings incompatible with the suttas/HH. In fact, going by a description of Burbea's Imaginal teachings by the person I mentioned, in practicing one would even be *increasing* one's sensual desire. Describing how one would visualise an image, they said: "The desire, or eros that one has for one's imaginal object somehow deepens the object's beauty and that, in turn, inflames the eros even more. One can sometimes be deeply, powerfully moved in the most poignant but impossible-to describe ways, the heart just melting in gorgeousness." What I'm getting from this description, is that this practice involves attending to the beautiful aspects of something (a visualised image) in a way which deepens the desire, which makes the beautiful aspects further stand out, which deepens the desire further, etc. It's a positive loop. If you have any familiarity with what sense restraint in the suttas is supposed to do, this is exactly the opposite of it. With sense restraint, one is supposed to recognise when one is dwelling on the beautiful features of something based on lust (or, rather, to recognise when one is *about* to attend to something based on lust and refrain from attending it) and one tries to reestablish the context, tries to 'zoom out.' The purpose of sense restraint is making sure that the arisen lust does *not* increase, and that unarisen lust does *not* arise. What Burbea's practice described here does is to go in the direction where lust is drawing one (the beautiful object) and, by going there, the lust deepens (it "inflames the eros even more"). Whatever the purpose behind a practice like this might be, it clearly goes in the opposite direction of the suttas. One last thing since I haven't directly adressed the 'emptiness' issue yet. The idea in Burbea's emptiness teachings seems to be that one has to realise that things (everyday objects), one's sense of self, space, time, etc. are in some way unreal ('lacking inherent existence'). This implies that the problem of suffering is rooted in us taking things as real. But what the Buddha is saying in the suttas - as HH Venerables are stressing - is that the problem is our craving (greed, aversion and delusion). So, for example, the problem is not that I experience an attractive person as real, the problem is the lust that I have towards them. Or in the case of a person I find unpleasant, again the issue would be the presence of aversion in me, not whether that person is seen as real or not. Now, there is a notion of emptiness in the suttas as well, but there it's described as things being empty of self or what belongs to a self. That is, the Buddha is saying that I'm somehow deeply mistaken in taking things as me or mine, not that I'm mistaken in thinking they are real.

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

@@zdrs_in_dvom Well put. Trying to see X as not real is pretty much like when a child covers its eyes and tries to modify its perception of the scary object into something else not scary (pretending that it does not exist or that it is not what it clearly is). Basically, this is also why the "Maya" (illusion) concept is baseless (If illusion is all you could possibly have, then it makes no sense to call or conceive it as that) and unimportant (has nothing to do with craving/suffering).

[@hometest-1579]

@@stefanvidenovic5095sure, but that’s not what Burbea was teaching. He was talking about the middle path about treating things as literally, naively real and discounting them as only mental creations. Yes, everything is empty, but there’s nothing else, so real is unreal in a sense and unreal is real.

[@amrittuladhar]

Where does the eightfold path fall into this? Is that not part of the Buddhist perspective?

[@Matrix2458]

Doesn't the diamond sutra make this quite clear? Practice the gift of giving without attachment to the giver, the gift, or the recipient. Material charity, emotional charity, and spiritual charity all build merit that benefit life and lead to liberation, but we can't be attached to that merit or else we limit it to the material through attainment, while it is infinite in the spiritual through non-attainment. Don't give candy to a baby, no matter how much it cries, but give nutrients and compassion to all beings across all realms throughout the material, and the rivers will all flow to the ocean. Can we learn more from the boddhisatva that is interconnected with both samsara and nirvana, or the Arhan who rejects and flees samsara to find meaningless and impermanent refuge in nirvana? I believe we can learn more from those who accept and face samsara head on than those who attempt to flee it, which is impossible as there is no attainment of nirvana. It's not burying yourself in the material in order to "fix it." It's positioning yourself on the interface between nirvana and samsara to lead all towards liberation. Not stuck in the mud, but balancing on top of it while maintaining clarity. If you look at the beings that materially and spiritually improved the conditions on Earth and facilitated the path, it's really beings like MLK who drastically improved conditions for people while preaching compassion and wisdom, not the monk who's been meditating for 50 years completely separate from the world. One practices the interconnections they preach and the other is too disconnected to see how disconnected they really are. There's benefit from both, but only through connection and interconnection. Like yeah, at the highest level of wisdom, the suffering beings experience isn't real, but are you going to explain that to a crying baby while they scream for their mother? No, compassion breeds wisdom and vice versa. Understand the highest wisdom, but apply it at the material level to benefit all. You can even see misogyny reflected in some sutras because the spiritual and material are intertwined. The idea that someone isn't responsible for doing good or having a positive impact on society is asinine. Right occupation literally says that your livelihood should have positive impact. A monk should be able to put more liberation into the world than a bus driver. Damn and then right into blaming it on overpopulation lmao. That's conservative as hell. That's a right wing talking point and doesn't explain the underdevelopment of countries that is necessary for imperialism and neocolonialism to thrive as resources are extracted to the global north and the wealthiest among us. The point being that you can't completely disconnect from the world, as material beings, we're always going to be influenced by politics and culture and vice versa. We have to use our wisdom and compassion to guide it along to the best of our ability, without attachment or personal desire or aversion.

[@secretagent4610]

Sure, you can have compassion for all those starving kids and I agree with you there, but you can ALSO tell parents to be more responsible if they know they're broke, but spit out kids like an assembly line. Those kids are still those parents responsibility ultimately.

[@NothingTheGreat]

Theravadan and 'Early Buddhism' Buddhists do not accept the Diamond Sutra as part of their canon. (I'm not making any argument for or against it; just clarifying that it is irrelevant to their position what the Diamond Sutra says)

[@Matrix2458]

It's a completely reasonable question of Buddhism who's goal is "freedom from suffering" to address the suffering from lack of resources. Any reasonable person could trace that suffering back to the cause of that suffering, which is material and spiritual and has a material and spiritual solution. Sure we can say, children shouldn't suffer and need a deep understanding of Buddhism so that they don't suffer, or we could be like, maybe we should pool resources and give starving people some food? The root of that suffering is ignorance, but at a more surface level, it's capitalism, imperialism, and neocolonialism, which can be studied and addressed on material levels. It's all about liberation, in the material and the spiritual. The idea that Buddhists shouldn't oppose injustice or put forth effort to build systems of compassion and wisdom is insane.

[@Tom-pn8kg]

@@Matrix2458 >neocolonialism Into the trash it goes

[@Liravin]

what's insane is to think compassion or wisdom _can_ be systematized

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

All of that is nice, reasonable and to be commended, but again, look into the suttas carefully and you won't find such practices in there, it's just not Dhamma. The dukkha is simply not on the level of the worldly plights, and for those who want to uproot it, they must not look for it where it is not. Having said that, for those who want to remain in the world, helping others in a worldly sense (minimizing the worldly suffering, as opposed to dukkha) is probably one of the best uses of their time and energy, in terms of how rewarding it is on multiple levels. As long as they stay within the 5 precepts of course. But again, it's apples and oranges. Buddha's Dhamma deals with the Dukkha (fundamental and all-pervasive existential uneasiness and anxiety, present even when all the circumstances are perfect), not with the circumstantial suffering of the world.

[@ghiblinerd6196]

Seems like at its core Theravada is pretty conservative

[@alecogden12345]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[@user-oj8rg6vd7q]

But metta -karuna says that we are compassionate towards others not leaving them to their fate

[@theinngu5560]

You can be compassionate and have Metta and if you see an action will be beneficial you can act but often you cannot make any difference, chiefly because often people don’t want to listen etc etc and then you have/develop equanimity….you can always send Metta and share merits to all beings or some specific beings and the more you practice and develop, the stronger the Metta and the merits that you share will be. Fate or kamma ?

[@kevinkheroux3438]

A good antidote to the nonsense online, like "Look, if you're a real Buddhist, you have to vote for the correct person. Have you got no compassion?" Actually I found out the translation of 'Buddhism' is "wokery".

[@TommyMaltby-d1b]

Ajahn, what is your motivation for teaching/sharing these videos? I’m not trying to be glib, just understand where you’re coming from. If no one should be involved in worldly affairs because of this ‘choice’, the only conclusion I can come to is that you claim arahantship and are therefore able to teach without being drawn back into sensuality, as the Buddha did. Is this the case? If you’re not allowed to say, please can you give some motivation behind your teaching?

[@ns1extreme]

I don't know Ven. Ajahn's motivation but I think the idea is that monks teach when asked to. The reason is because refusing is unwholesome. So the teaching is in itself a practice but if there's no requests made they don't go out looking for students but focus on their own practice. That's my understanding but it might be incorrect.

[@danielhopkins296]

To maintain that the earliest Buddhist missionaries didn't preach against greed, deceit and etc is ridiculous

[@willmosse3684]

So why did the Buddha negotiate a peace between warring kings? This seems like worldly involvement for the purpose of reducing suffering.

[@theinngu5560]

When the Buddha had done the work of liberating himself, he could teach people…both to realise Nibbana if they had the aptitude and to stop people making more suffering for themselves if he saw they were open to it, such as the warring kings. As he said, ‘I teach only two things : suffering and the ending of suffering’.

[@ognjenjosifov126]

There is an amazing book from Bhikkhu Bodhi called: The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon. Buddha didn't teach this. You can read it on the Nikaya's or nicly arranged in this book. Buddha was very smart person and he had many ideas on economics and in general on society.

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Yes, when he was asked to give advise on worldly affairs. But that has nothing to do with freedom from dukkha (fundamental and all-pervasive existential uneasiness and anxiety, present even when all the circumstances are perfect), so it's not The Dhamma. You can also find Buddha giving instructions on what kind of leaves to use to wipe yourself after taking a dump in the wild...

[@ognjenjosifov126]

Oh sorry I didn't know that Buddha did teach dhamma and non-dhamma. So when he said I only teach suffering and end of suffering he meant that he teaches Damma and not dhamma and how to poop in the forest. I get it thanks.

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

@@ognjenjosifov126 Now, that would be too literal. Just because a math teacher teaches only math, it does not mean that they can not give you advise on, say, what is proper nutrition... That would not make them any less of a math teacher and no one would confuse math for nutrition or vice versa.

[@ognjenjosifov126]

This is a rediculus clame. That you know what is dhamma and know what is not dhamma. When it's all in the same place. And he litterely mentions that this is dhamma when talking about economics or social issues.

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

@@ognjenjosifov126 Sorry, that makes no sense. You can try to change my mind by providing an exact Sutta reference for that.

[@mikebenson7716]

Do monks rely on the kindness of strangers to donate and prepare food and supplies?

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Yes they do. But that does not change any of the facts stated in the talk.

[@WhoeverNevermind]

Thank you for sharing!

[@456mjb]

Kids, animals, and disabled people are more at the mercy of other people’s choices. Who pays for food and lodging for Theravadan monks?

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

People wishing their own well-fare (and rightly so, I do it too) pay for food and lodging for monks. Kids, animals and disabled people could also be greatly benefited if everyone curbs greatly their passions and aversions, as the talk insists on. And that is the precise effect that Nyanamoli is trying to instill in people. Whether you decide to go all the way in this or not is a choice.

[@willmosse3684]

What if you see someone drowning in a pool by the side of the road? Should you pull them out? Or is this too worldly?

[@chrisvanleuven1771]

Why would there be a pool by the side of the road , why would a monk be walking there ?

[@theinngu5560]

Yes

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Of course they can pull them out, that literally takes a couple of minutes, it saves a life, and is a one-time thing. Now, if I monk starts looking for more of such cases, that would very likely become a distraction for him/her (especially if still a puthujjana)... Why is this so hard to understand...

[@dcktater7847]

I guess it depends i'm not sure i'd bother with resuscitating an unconscious person cause i dont wanna be resuscitated in a case like that. Now if they are conscious and wanna be helped i guess i couldnt not.

[@KeerthiAbe]

Sidatha Gothama is the name of the Buddha; according to the thripitakaya Pali Canon ( ත්‍රිපිටකය). Most translations are wrong. Sermons are in a language called Magadhi, not Pali as claimed so far. Kindly see the "Arittha Sutta" & "Gopaka Moggallana Sutta" which explain about the Anapana mixup with breathing meditation exercise; to start.

[@LotusPoet]

Truth. Pure and simple. ☀

[@KaaLee8]

.....it depends....the path is so complex and vast and full of paradoxes....realizing ones true nature is beyond good and bad. 🙏💜 may all beings awaken to the truth!!

[@Spiritualjourney259]

Thanks alot Venerables.

[@odinskiodinski9624]

So ultimate, yet I think it is not definitely the right view. Why do we pursue enlightenment? Not selfish means. For the sake of all sentient beings everywhere. To facilitate the liberation from Samsara. So if you act in the best interest of that, you are involved. Also, What if someone deliberately destroys the dharma which goes against that. Will you also not defend the interests or continuation of the dharma? Because it would incline an attachement? It's a fallacy until the status of Arhat has been reached. And perhaps, the path of the boddhisatva is a more logical approach for the current time, that is of better service to all sentient beings reaching a higher state of awareness free from suffering. You do you, but it seems you've traded the ultimate for the relative before it applies to you.

[@orenjisalmonpaw]

Leaving samsara without even trying to help the rest of living creatures is cruel and goes against the bodhisattva vow, one should love all beings as one's mothers, you won't leave your mother to starve if you could do something about it, same applies to any suffering

[@theinngu5560]

You cannot love all living beings whilst you have hatred in your mind/heart. You need to get rid of the defilements first…just as a parent needs to put their own oxygen mask on on a plane in trouble before the child’s.

[@mikebenson7716]

Well, so much for Lovingkindness! The Pali Canon was written by people who never knew the Buddha and each school twisted the meanings over the years.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Loving kindness is a state of mind, not a call to go around forcing old ladies to cross the street or to dispense vigilante justice.

[@meditationamsterdam]

This is the classic mistake of confusing doing with sense of doership. It's very old school talk. Vedanta tells you samsara equals nirvana and all these distinctions of arahant or saving the world become irrelevant. This is my current understanding as neither arahant nor activist. So really not much more than opinion. Dogmatic, doesn't feel right.

[@theinngu5560]

Vedanta is a different path. Samsara is complicit with suffering and Nibbana is the release from suffering…they are not equal.

[@sertulariae8294]

practice Metta more. u too heavy

[@Coral-h4c1]

I think spreading the dhamma is enough to better the entire world. Everything else is transient. This channel helped me A TON in lay life, being a layman. I feel it is not fair that Ajahn dismisses his impact on laity and laity impact on sustaining monks lifestyle

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Not quite, he just has very high standards (highest possible), so he often comes off very dismissive of small benefits that some may gain even without taking up the actual training.

[@ognjenjosifov126]

And again and again Buddhism is not just for monks. Lay disciple is extremely important and if there is no Lay disciple all monks die or break the rules. You need us and we need you. And buddha did teach how to be in the world. And buddha did teach kings and other rulers how to behave. And as The BUDDHA did say in the Nikaya's there were many thousands of people of lay disciples that reached 3th stage of enlightenment.

[@stefanvidenovic5095]

Friend, you should really try to understand what exactly is the one and only root of suffering, until you do that, all these matters will remain unclear to you. It's not enough to just think "it's craving", because craving has many levels of subtlety, many of which can properly be seen and understood only after a prolonged ascetic effort. Also, lay people don't have to be "buddhist" (pursuing freedom from dukkha and the end of existence) to help the monks, the same way they don't have to be sick or poor to help the sick and poor. And yes, Buddha intentionally made the rules for monks such as they are so as to enforce this symbiosis. It's not necessarily bad kamma to prepare your own food... And there are some exceptions in the Vinaya when Buddha allowed monks to have more say in their own food prepping. So his goal was the symbiosis specifically. Monks get to be wholly dependent on lay support preventing them from getting negligent in their pursuit of liberation (not being your own boss is scary but very conducive for liberation). And the lay people (not pursuing liberation) get to make merit, some of which is immediately verifiable (very positive effects on the mind of the giver) and some of which only later on (next lives). About the Anāgāmis among the lay, it was far less of an occurrence, way less than "many thousands". And those few rare cases, they most likely did a lot of ascetic training in previous lives. Also, they were lay only in a formal sense, internally they were full-on monks (celibate, dispassionate, solitary, etc).

[@ognjenjosifov126]

I will let the Buddha replay on that there were not many lay disciples who have achieved 1 or 2 stage. And they were even enjoying sensual pleasures including sex. As he talks later on about the celibate lay disciples: Naḷakapāna Sutta (AN 10.99)"There are, Ānanda, many lay followers, clothed in white, enjoying sensual pleasures, who, with the destruction of the first three fetters, have become stream-enterers, no longer subject to lower realms, certain of liberation, destined for awakening. There are, Ānanda, many lay followers, clothed in white, enjoying sensual pleasures, who, with the destruction of the first three fetters and the attenuation of lust, hatred, and delusion, have become once-returners, returning once to this world to make an end of suffering. There are, Ānanda, many lay followers, clothed in white, enjoying sensual pleasures, who, with the destruction of the five lower fetters, will reappear spontaneously [in the Pure Abodes] and there attain final Nibbāna, without ever returning from that world. There are, Ānanda, many lay followers, clothed in white, enjoying sensual pleasures, who, through the destruction of the taints, have realized for themselves with direct knowledge, in this very life, the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and, having entered upon it, abide in it.""Ānanda, there are not only one hundred or two hundred or three hundred or five hundred, but far more lay followers, clothed in white, enjoying sensual pleasures, who, with the destruction of the first three fetters, have become stream-enterers, no longer subject to the lower realms, certain of liberation, destined for awakening."

[@thornydiaz7387]

​@@ognjenjosifov126 You are clearly very upset to the point that you are asking ChatGPT to quote you Suttas, which inevitably leads to extreme errors as your careless reply demonstrates: There is no "Naḷakapāna Sutta (AN 10.99)". Nalakapana sutta is MN 68 and the text you quoted about laity enjoying sex and being non-returners does not exist in it at all. Instead, the sutta says this: "Take a laywoman who hears this: ‘The laywoman named so-and-so has passed away. The Buddha has declared that, with the ending of the five lower fetters, she’s been reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.’ And she’s either seen for herself, or heard from someone else, that that sister had such ethics, such qualities, such wisdom, such meditation, or such freedom." As for AN 10.99, it talks about some entirely different things. I'd give you a genuine advice, although I doubt you'll want to hear it, but try and calm down and approach the talks on this channel without the fault finding mind. Trust me, you will benefit immensely, even if the content of some of the talks initially upsets you.

[@DanielBepunkt]

Can you acknowledge the mind stuff? Everything made up. He talks about religious fantasies. And his mind stuff is the most important to him. Do not get in the trap and become such cold hearted like him. You can in the face or smile of people if they got it. And he is trapped in the suttas and mind stuff. 🙏

[@HallsofMnemosyne]

Get a life, Daniel.

[@zorananda]

The Dhamma has only the taste of freedom from suffering which is rooted in dispassion and disenchantment for life and seclusion from the world. Whatever does not lead to that, is not the Buddha Dhamma but some fabricated fantasy.

[@markovucic280]

What

[@rememberyourusername728]

Mind stuff? You say it's made up, but with reference to what is it "made up"? If you want to throw out the suttas then what is the standard? One's own views, tainted with ignorance? Attachment to how things make us feel? I can see that it's difficult for you. It's difficult for me too, to accept the sheer extent of suffering. I struggle with this too, so please don't take my words as dismissive or a judgement of you. This Samsara is endless repetition of meaningless suffering and nothing can fix it. It's heartbreaking. It's not denying that good can be done, but the impact of that good, like the merit it accrues, will expire, and one is left back in the same position. A living being, bound with a body and mind, trapped by ignorance and subject to suffering. It's the nature of ignorance to look away from the way things are when they don't suit, but to deny that this Samsara is top to bottom suffering is to delude ourselves and bind ourselves to that suffering. Right view begins with the first Noble Truth, to see the suffering and not look away. To look at the suffering and understand the only way out of it is to practice in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. To not look away from or deny suffering, to free oneself from it, this is the ultimate compassion. I wish you well.

[@laurentiusogor1572]

Daniel, look closer, he is most compasionate as he is teaching complete freedom. When you sincerely want to be free, then you see his great compassion 🙏🏼