I return now to my correspondence with Justin Whitaker concerning the Sigālovāda Sutta, the Pali textual content so usually considered as a information to the family life. Justin helpfully begins his latest post with a listing of the earlier correspondence we now have exchanged on the subject thus far, so I received’t repeat the listing right here. (The opening listing sadly doesn’t embrace hyperlinks to the sooner posts, however these hyperlinks will be discovered on the backside of the latest post.)
From my previous post on the extra normal philosophical points, I believe we will now return to the sutta itself. Justin is appropriate that I learn the Sigālovāda Sutta as “an excessively strict and dour textual content that sucks the enjoyment out of householder life”. He claims that it is a misreading. Is it? Allow us to check out the function of the Sigālovāda that almost all leads me to such a studying: what I characterize as its prohibition on attending theatrical exhibits. I’ll study that prohibition intimately this time, and subsequent time discuss we do with it as Buddhist theologians – a subject that I discover extra attention-grabbing. (Since Justin and I’ve been pursuing this debate at a gradual tempo, I’ll put up the following one on my standard schedule in two weeks, and I like to recommend he anticipate it earlier than posting a reply.)
I’ll begin with some extent about reinterpretation, which will likely be related once more subsequent time. I believe it is very important head off a confusion right here between exegetical and constructive evaluation. The main target of my subsequent put up will likely be constructive – about how we as Buddhists ought to apply these passages now – however this one is simply exegetical, concerning the that means of the textual content itself. Justin says “Later, Lele agrees that I’ve pushed the purpose that he’s reinterpreting the sutta, referring to this post. I’m not fairly certain what Justin means by this sentence; it sounds like he implies that I agreed that I was “reinterpreting the sutta”. That isn’t true, and should you learn the post) you will note that I didn’t say that. I mentioned that “my very own tackle Buddhism is a reinterpretation, a departure from the classical Pali suttas”. That’s to say, my constructive tackle Buddhism generally is a reinterpretation, in that there are factors the place I overtly admit disagreeing with what most of the classical sutta themselves say. (I’ll say extra about this level’s implications subsequent time.) I believe Justin disagrees with classical Buddhism, and reinterprets it on this constructive sense, a minimum of as a lot as I do; the query could also be how a lot we’re able to admit it.
What I’ve not been doing is reinterpreting the Sigālovāda Sutta itself, and I by no means claimed to be. A minimum of, not past a really primary (and on this case trivial) sense that each interpretation is a reinterpretation by advantage of placing issues in phrases that hadn’t been used earlier than. I’m presenting what the sutta really does say, in a approach aiming to be as devoted as I will be to the unique textual content and its authors; I reinterpret the custom by leaving the sutta out of the custom as I take it. It’s Justin who I believe is reinterpreting the sutta, as I mentioned earlier than. I hope it was clear that my earlier title, “Reinterpreting the Sigālovāda’s prohibition on theatre“, was referring to what I believed Justin was doing – as a result of, as I mentioned there, that may be a departure from what the sutta really says.
Right here’s what I imply by “what the sutta really says”:
inasmuch because the noble disciple just isn’t led by need, anger, ignorance, and concern, he commits no evil…. What are the six channels for dissipating wealth which he doesn’t pursue? Indulgence in intoxicants which trigger infatuation and heedlessness; sauntering in streets at unseemly hours; frequenting theatrical exhibits…
There are, younger householder, these six evil penalties in frequenting theatrical exhibits. He’s ever considering:
(i) the place is there dancing?
(ii) the place is there singing?
(iii) the place is there music?
(iv) the place is there recitation?
(v) the place is there taking part in with cymbals?
(vi) the place is there pot-blowing?…
In 4 methods, younger householder, ought to one who brings break be understood as a foe within the guise of a buddy:
(i) he’s a companion in indulging in intoxicants that trigger infatuation and heedlessness,
(ii) he’s a companion in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours,
(iii) he’s a companion in frequenting theatrical exhibits,
(iv) he’s a companion in indulging in playing which causes heedlessness.
I’m quoting Narada Thera’s online translation; if Justin thinks there’s something incorrect with that translation I’m comfortable to make use of one other or refer again to the Pali. These passages are why I believe the textual content prohibits theatre. Justin refers to this as my “studying fairly actually”.
I’m not clear what the choice to “studying fairly actually” is meant to be on this context. Are we to take these passages as a metaphor or comparable determine of speech? Are we to grasp that when the sutta says that the noble disciple doesn’t frequent theatrical exhibits, that frequenting theatrical exhibits has six evil penalties, and that to be a companion at theatrical exhibits is to convey break as a foe within the guise of a buddy, it means one thing else? (Justin, you do agree that it says all of these items, proper? That these phrases are there within the textual content of the sutta?) In that case, what precisely would these passages imply as a substitute, and why would we expect that that the sutta implies that different factor as a substitute of taking the easier interpretation that the sutta really means what it says?
The best non sequitur in Justin’s put up is to say my interpretation is in some way “not conventional” as a result of “theater exists and has existed in comparatively conservative Theravāda international locations similar to Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand…” Uh, certain. Theatre existed within the time the sutta was composed as nicely: that’s how the sutta can inform you to not go there! If theatre hadn’t existed, there could be no want for a prohibition on it. (Thus the sutta contains no prohibition on spending one’s days at residence taking part in video video games: since there have been no such video games when it was composed, there was nothing to ban.) Another issues that additionally exist and have existed in some or all of these “comparatively conservative Theravāda international locations”: the capitalist pursuit of excesses of wealth, the homicide of non-Buddhist minorities, exploitative prostitution. If I have been to say that Buddhist suttas frown upon these items, would that make my interpretation untraditional?
I hope you see my level: what occurs to exist in Theravāda international locations, now or up to now, has nothing in any respect to do with the that means of the traditional suttas. It doesn’t even essentially have something to do with their interpretation by later custom. Individuals ceaselessly ignored the suttas’ recommendation on the time of their composition, they ceaselessly ignored it in Buddhist international locations within the intervening centuries, they usually ceaselessly ignore it now. That’s a fairly primary statement of the sphere of spiritual research, in a approach hardly restricted to Buddhism.
Justin would have extra of a leg to face on right here in calling my interpretation “untraditional” if he may level to premodern historic commentaries that interpreted the sutta as saying it was high-quality to go to the theatre. If he is aware of of any, I’d have an interest to learn them. (He says “I’ve seen no proof that monastics and laity all through historical past have learn the sutta when it comes to any type of ‘prohibition of theater.’” Does he have proof that they haven’t? With out such proof, I don’t suppose it’s accountable to only make up an interpretation that’s handy to us and privilege that over what the sutta really says. That’s what I would name a misreading.) Trendy commentaries are related too, however they do much less to determine what’s a “conventional” interpretation: individuals who write trendy commentaries are a part of the custom, certain, however so is Justin and so am I.
So, I really feel very snug in saying, exegetically, that the Sigālovāda Sutta prohibits laypeople from attending the theatre. Clearly this isn’t a authorized prohibition, because the sutta was by no means supposed to have the pressure of something like regulation – in contrast to vinaya guidelines for monks, say, that are enforceable. However there’s a prohibition in an moral sense: if what’s good for you, you received’t go to theatrical exhibits or hang around with associates who advocate you do. On the grounds that that’s certainly what the sutta really says, I’m comfortable, too, to take the speculation that that may be a conventional interpretation of the sutta, until and till I see proof that it isn’t – and thus far I’ve seen none.
