RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Actors are devils??? Really???
Dear James> James: In the sutta of the actor, I don't see any of these categories. The actor (magician really) believed that by doing his magic acts he was going to be reborn into the realm of "laughing devas". Now, as far as I know there is no such realm; and he wasn't really helping people with his magic act. But, all of the above standards for wrong view is about those who believe there are no consequences for actions. It doesn't mention anything about those who believe in consequences for actions but believe in the wrong consequences for the wrong actions. Do you follow me?
JK: First of all, the lord Buddha said that the only Sotapannas or the stream-winners to Arahats will be safe from falling into the states of misery (they will not be born as an animal or hell being). They are not capable of committing wrong action against 5 precepts including akusala kamma patha. Their lust, hatred and delusion will not be strong enough to cause rebirth in the lower realms.But for general people, they break 5 precepts and commit akusasa kamma patha quite frequently in their daily life. Therefore, they are more likely being born in lower realms.Same as us, we don't know what we have had committed in the past. We are not safe from reborn in lower realms because of our past kamma. Even in our daily life, we can be certain that we can avoid breaking 5 percepts and akusala kamma patha when the time comes. Therefore, the last words of the lord Buddha reminded us that don't be heedless.In all kind of career not just about acting career, people still behave with wrong action and speech. Unless they learn dhamma and really aware of severe result of bad kamma, they can not back down their behavior.In case of this actor sutta, the wrong view of an actor who believe that making people laugh and giving them delight with his act, then with his death, and he will be reborn in deva is close to the wrong view of misunderstanding defilement and purification. He sees wrong as right or sees akusala as kusala. He, therefore, trends to commit akusala deeds to have his audiences obsessing with lobha and moha while he thinks that is the way of purification. That's why this wrong view will eventually have his rebirth citta arise in lower realms that human.AnumodhanaJagkrit
- Hi Alex
>RE: The "neti-neti" technique is used by philosophically inclined *Hindus* and the idea that Atman cannot be >described but exists is a *Hindu* idea. It is the opposite of the Buddhist idea of anatta, and is one of the >major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism
How do we know that Buddha (who was raised as a Hindu) didn't use the same technique?
RE: Because he didn't teach it.
Alex: BTW, I do not believe in an Atman. I am just pointing out flawed argument.
RE: It's only flawed if you ignore the logic of the argument. The Buddha made other statements that more conclusively showed that there is no self.
When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Clearly, this shows the viewpoint that any view of self or personal identity is what causes suffering. Anatta is not just a parlor game of saying a few things are "not it."
- - - - - - - - -