I return now to my correspondence with Justin Whitaker in regards to the Sigālovāda Sutta, the Pali textual content so typically considered as a information to the family life. Justin helpfully begins his latest post with a listing of the earlier correspondence we’ve exchanged on the subject to this point, so I received’t repeat the record right here. (The opening record sadly doesn’t embrace hyperlinks to the sooner posts, however these hyperlinks could be discovered on the backside of the latest post.)
From my previous post on the extra basic philosophical points, I believe we will now return to the sutta itself. Justin is right that I learn the Sigālovāda Sutta as “a very strict and dour textual content that sucks the enjoyment out of householder life”. He claims that this can be a misreading. Is it? Allow us to check out the characteristic of the Sigālovāda that the majority leads me to such a studying: what I characterize as its prohibition on attending theatrical reveals. I’ll study that prohibition intimately this time, and subsequent time speak about we do with it as Buddhist theologians – a subject that I discover extra fascinating. (Since Justin and I’ve been pursuing this debate at a sluggish tempo, I’ll put up the subsequent one on my traditional schedule in two weeks, and I like to recommend he anticipate it earlier than posting a reply.)
I’ll begin with a degree about reinterpretation, which might 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 might be constructive – about how we as Buddhists ought to apply these passages now – however this one is simply exegetical, in regards to 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 positive what Justin means by this sentence; it sounds like he signifies that I agreed that I was “reinterpreting the sutta”. That isn’t true, and should you learn the post) you will notice that I didn’t say that. I stated that “my very own tackle Buddhism is a reinterpretation, a departure from the classical Pali suttas”. That’s to say, my constructive tackle Buddhism basically is a reinterpretation, in that there are factors the place I overtly admit disagreeing with what lots 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, at the least 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. At the least, 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 method aiming to be as trustworthy as I could 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 stated earlier than. I hope it was clear that my earlier title, “Reinterpreting the Sigālovāda’s prohibition on theatre“, was referring to what I assumed Justin was doing – as a result of, as I stated there, that could 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 isn’t led by want, anger, ignorance, and worry, 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 reveals…
There are, younger householder, these six evil penalties in frequenting theatrical reveals. He’s ever pondering:
(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 enjoying with cymbals?
(vi) the place is there pot-blowing?…
In 4 methods, younger householder, ought to one who brings destroy be understood as a foe within the guise of a good friend:
(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 reveals,
(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 mistaken with that translation I’m blissful 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 know that when the sutta says that the noble disciple doesn’t frequent theatrical reveals, that frequenting theatrical reveals has six evil penalties, and that to be a companion at theatrical reveals is to deliver destroy as a foe within the guise of a good friend, it means one thing else? (Justin, you do agree that it says all of this stuff, 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 predict that that the sutta signifies 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 nations akin to Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand…” Uh, positive. Theatre existed within the time the sutta was composed as properly: that’s how the sutta can let you know 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 house enjoying 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 nations”: 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 this stuff, would that make my interpretation untraditional?
I hope you see my level: what occurs to exist in Theravāda nations, 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. Folks steadily ignored the suttas’ recommendation on the time of their composition, they steadily ignored it in Buddhist nations within the intervening centuries, they usually steadily ignore it now. That’s a fairly primary commentary of the sphere of spiritual research, in a method hardly restricted to Buddhism.
Justin would have extra of a leg to face on right here in calling my interpretation “untraditional” if he might level to premodern historic commentaries that interpreted the sutta as saying it was effective 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 by way of 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 simply 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, positive, however so is Justin and so am I.
So, I really feel very comfy in saying, exegetically, that the Sigālovāda Sutta prohibits laypeople from attending the theatre. Clearly this isn’t a authorized prohibition, for the reason that sutta was by no means meant to have the pressure of something like legislation – not like 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 reveals or hang around with buddies who suggest you do. On the grounds that that’s certainly what the sutta really says, I’m blissful, too, to take the speculation that that could be a conventional interpretation of the sutta, except and till I see proof that it isn’t – and to this point I’ve seen none.
Cross-posted at the Indian Philosophy Blog.
