13

In the Talaputta Sutra the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in Indian 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?

The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Many Thanks for any/all responses.

  • 8
    It seems to me the quote above is just about wrong view (Talaputa seemed to have strong faith in joining the laughing devas by being an actor). The other part, pertaining to the question, states that by intensifying delusions, passions and aversions, being "himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless [...] he is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter". – Thiago Feb 14 '15 at 18:33
  • A more moderate view is probably the 'Bodhisattva's sphere of intimacy' chapter of the Lotus sutra, which says that actors are a type of person whom a bodhisattva shouldn't be intimate with. The reasons are probably things like acquiring bad habits and being drawn into bad company. (I don't intend this as a criticism of what may be a Pali text btw. If it seems so, please delete). – user10515 Nov 5 '17 at 2:49
  • So attanā matto pamatto pare madetvā pamādetvā kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā pahāso nāma nirayo tattha upapajjati. Does anyone know if pamatto mean intoxicated or negligent? I read on one of translation it says negligent and clearless – B1100 Dec 21 '19 at 4:54
  • The quoted words do not criticise actors! They criticise actors who hold a certain view and take a certain approach. The criticism might hold for most actors given the nature of the profession, but we are all actors on a stage. – user14119 Dec 22 '19 at 18:19
  • @PeterJ What an interesting answer. I wish that were an answer instead of a comment, I might be the only person in the world who ever notices a comment posted against a old question since I use a specialised view of the site so I can moderate. Even in general answers should be posted as an answer not a comment, please, and even if they're short. – ChrisW Dec 26 '19 at 11:25

15 Answers 15

6

The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.

So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.

However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.

| improve this answer | |
  • how is having emotions a "wrong view" ? – sorta_buddhist Mar 10 '15 at 22:07
  • and how can you compare a butcher to an actor ? – sorta_buddhist Mar 10 '15 at 22:18
  • With "emotions", I have summarized what the sutta lists specifically as passion, aversion and delusion (the three poisons). The Ajivaka Sutta also mentions the three. – ruben2020 Mar 11 '15 at 1:03
  • 4
    The comparison is not regarding the actions. It is about intentions. The butcher had the explicit intention to take the life of the animals, while the actor did have the explicit intention to inflame emotions in the audience, including passion, aversion and delusion (at least in some cases). As I said, it surprises me also. – ruben2020 Mar 11 '15 at 1:05
6

Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

I think the Buddha was referring to People with Wrong View. Which in this particular story happened to be an actor.But could be anybody from different kind of professions. On the other hand when you come to think of it this profession requires someone to intentionally sum up anger,hatred,passion to get into "character" where you may be lost in it,or become it for it to be believable.So it might have some detriments.Or vice versa actors may take up roles of playing a holy man or a noble individual which may have some benefit.

| improve this answer | |
  • Buddha made two statements. The first one encouraging greed, hatred and delusion, the destination is hell of laugher. The second statement is wrong view, the destination is either animal womb and hell. You can encourage defilem on other people in pretty much anything, not only by being an actor. So it's not only about wrong view. – B1100 Dec 20 '19 at 13:49
5

Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.

I think this line is also important, apart from the answer. There's a reason why the Buddha refused to answer even for the second time. Because the answer to this question could potentially turn certain people away from the Dhamma. But Talaputta was wise and matured enough to figure it out.

To understand this, you have to analyse the mind states of an actor. An actor is a person who glorifies and savors emotions like anger, rage, lust, craving etc. So if a person dies with such a mindstate, his/her destination cannot be a good one. The following passage clearly explains it.

Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival.... Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Also, believing that such a profession would lead one to a happy destination makes it worse as false view comes into play as well. But this does not mean that all actors are hellbound. It depends on what Kamma comes forward to bear fruit at the time of death.

To take an example, an actor getting angry and pretending to kill someone on stage usually does not involve mind states corrupted enough to kill a man for real. So the Kamma he accumulates by acting the scene is much less than someone doing it in real life.

| improve this answer | |
3

Acting leads towards hell (or lower destinations), it is one of those things perceived to be harmless but actually causes harm.

But it's not true that all actors would go to hell just that acting itself leads towards hell.

In fact believing "all people who do certain things go to hell" is a wrong view that leads towards hell according to The Buddha:

'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell. (Sankha Sutta, SN 42.8)

The Buddha also explains in other suttas the complexities of kamma that it's not true that all people who do evil go to hell or that all people who do good go to heaven, some people who do evil still go to heaven and others that do good go to hell.

"Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death." (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

What happens to a person after death relies on much more than just one thing or one deed, but also earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death, which is why sometimes good people go to hell and evil people go to heaven.

The effects of kamma however will always be felt in some form either now or in some existence

"...he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence" (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

The Buddha also explains how an evil deed can take one individual to hell but for another individual gets experienced here and now and barely appears for a moment, depending how developed the individual is in body, virtue, mind, and discernment:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

Since everyone has intentionally or unintentionally done evil deeds, had wrong views, etc...either now or in the past they should try to become developed in body, mind, virtue, discernment, and large-hearted.

So will "all actors go to hell?" the answer is no. But will "most actors go to hell?" I'm not sure, The Buddha seems to indicate that most people in general go to the three lower destinations after death (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts).

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?"

"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.

"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)

So most people in general go towards the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) after death including actors and non-actors...very few go to the more pleasant destinations (humans, devas (heavenly world)).

| improve this answer | |
3

Buddha is aware person. He is careful about his actions and it's effects on others. Buddha understands that existence treats you according to what you are. You become what you do. Whether it is subtle action like thinking or gross action, you become what you do. You are what you do. Existence treats you according to what you are. Buddha did not just mean actors, he also meant those who arouse passions in others whether they are politicians, priests, actors or anyone. Hence Buddha said that blessed is the one word that brings peace...... According to Buddha, because actors arouse passions in people and push them deeper in to ignorance, Buddha understood what actors are and what existence will do with them. Hence he said that actors will go to hell of laughter not the heaven.

| improve this answer | |
1

Firstly, i have to say, i do not know the passage of the text. So my help may be limited or in fact unless!

But, here goes. When the Buddha was referring to an "actor" is it possible that He was referring to a person who lives a deluded life of ignorance, resulting in extreme manifestations of imagination, thus the "actor" is created (but not a real film or stage actor, as a job). This would make sense as, the Buddha went on to say that there are only two destinations for such a mind. Which is true, ignorance at it's highest level would result in poor choices and actions in this life and the next. And the reference to the " stage" well, that could be Earth or existence.

Again, not sure i have been of any help, but this is my view with such little knowledge of the text.

Metta.

| improve this answer | |
1

More like the Buddha had a dim view of people with wrong view. Being an actor doesn't always mean the actor is going to have wrong view about devas laughing at the actor. The Buddha doesn't specify how much wrong view leads to lower realms so we have to take this in context. The Buddha's words are tailored for individual audiences and he says things in a way these individuals can understand. This is a reason there seems to be contradictions galore in the Buddha's teaching and another reason there seems to be contradictions is because ultimate and conceptual teachings seem to clash at first like, "there is a self and there is not a self to be found". That only seems contradicting if we don't understand the Buddha is talking about two ways to experience reality.

| improve this answer | |
1

An actor is a micchā-vācā of micchā-ājīva in 8-mijjhā-magga, akusala-kammapatha-offense career that buddha said "reborn in hell", because it is 7th of 10 akusala kammapatha, samphappalāla-akusalakammapatha. And that mijjhā-ājīva is wrong livelihood in vanijjasutta (english translation).

Actor/singer career is direct hindrance career for the meditations, because 8 fold path require right speech and right action of right career first as adhi-sīla (observe-practice that is an important base of meditation-practice, higher level practice).

| improve this answer | |
0

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

Seems quite straight forward. At the time some actors obviously believed they'd be going to be with the laughing devas after death. This was wrong view which meant they were buggered especially if they were born into the animal realm if the Chiggala Sutta is anything to go by.

| improve this answer | |
0

Neither the Buddha nor the Sutta quoting the Buddha here, say that an actor is generally, because of the job actor, destinated in lower realms but, again:

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

And missing passage in the Sutta:

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Something that counts for everyone with ever kind of livelihood.

So if one is eager to move more worse and encourages other as well, that is the reason for hell.

And if a person even holds the view that such leads to heaven, then even more worse.

It's just that it is tge nature of common acting an show business, that such might be often the case.

There are plenty actors who actually work against passion, aversion and delusion.

If in this view an ice-cream seller is crazy ofter ice and makes the mass crazy in seeking for consuming it, if he holds the view that passion after ice-cream leads to heaven, then hi case is the same of that of this actor here.

Many ways of offensive advertising on illusion, look on advertisement generally, are fully in the frame of being destinated to hell.

It would be totally against the Dhamma and the Buddhas approaches to say biased an preoccupied that this or that job lead, because of this or that job, to hell.

So Suttas should be carefully readed and Kamma be understood. Otherwise bias and grave A-Dhamma is naturally.

So one telling people with delusion and views: "Yes, actors are destinated to hell. Yes, that is wrong livelihood!" in general, increasing others bias with his bias, such a person is in this way destinated to hell. Why? He does actually not know, not understand, listens to his teacher and soon may cry, for having been cheated in that way. Actually teaching without knowing is much more dangerous as acting, since most people would at least do not take acting serious, but if one appears "acting" as a teacher, such is much more serious!

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

| improve this answer | |
0

its not the profession that makes the person goes to hell or haven its the deception that person cause through his acting and emotional violation he cause on others that person to become "Agathigami", its not just acting but any profession or act that creates bad influence on others can end up in the same category,

But remember no one will just go to hell just because they deceive others, why ? There is no good and bad things in the universe according to Buddha all the thouts are in the category called "Karma", no one judges you, no one decide your path, what will judge you is your own you consciousness with the understanding that you had,

universe or god or anyone will not record anything you do, but there will be ripples of your Karma that emits through you to the universe which effects you, as we know its all about negative and positive vibrations which universe has being made out, so at some point some of these vibrations that you emits will get back to you in some part of universe when you born again (there is no re birth in Buddhism and its an another mind boggling thearoy), in every thought that you emits have its signature or frequency that can resonate on you as good or bad depending on what you emits and its not always true either because Karma has types like "Ahosi kamma" which has loss power to resonate on you or just Dissipated in to universe while its reaching you.

The bottom line is whatever you do is depend on how you feel about it not just because others have fixed standard on it, the meaning that you attached to it, if your goal is to deceive people and take advantage of fame , money, attraction and if you know its bad then the Karma of acting thoughts (your action doesn't have place in Karma just your thoughts , but there is no action without thoughts and there is lots of thoughts without evan you knowing about it, Ironic ha..) will became bad that's what 99% of actors do they wants their acting to be more realistic and deceiving and those are very bad thoughts, but if your act is to spread morel value ,and your pure goal is to give happiness or joy or hope to someone and that's Good Karma.

Its all what you think directly or indirectly, your consciousness ,your feelings of good and bad, right or wrong which makes your Karma , not what others feel or others do becous of you. No one have a thing to do with that.as long as your intentions are good (according to your thoughts - inner voice or whatever) evan someone became a king of hell becouse of something you do or say will not evan effect you in any way.

| improve this answer | |
  • what does "Agathigami" mean? – Dhammadhatu Dec 23 '19 at 5:16
  • prejudicial = harmful to someone or something; detrimental. to become bad – Aylian Craspa Dec 23 '19 at 9:32
  • Thank you suttacentral.net/define/agati + suttacentral.net/define/gama This is an English language forum and it is best to use Roman Pali words. Regards – Dhammadhatu Dec 23 '19 at 9:35
  • yes same, its mean "tendency to be bad", and you can also use the word with the meaning of "being bad" – Aylian Craspa Dec 23 '19 at 9:41
  • Ye. I know "agati" means "prejudice" or "bias". DN 31 describes four types of agati, namely, agati due to love (chandāgati), due to hate (dosāgati), due to fear (bhayāgati) and due to stupidity (mohāgati). – Dhammadhatu Dec 23 '19 at 9:44
-1

no.. in that sutta, he didnt guarantee that actors will go to suffering realm in next life. only truly doomed people are those who committed 5 heinous crimes (Ānantarika-karma).

Let me see if could remove that (-) off my comment by explaining it further. This one prince (i dont recall his name but something like Sorakani Sakaya-he was related to buddha,hence, sakaya) was an alcoholic. After his death, Buddha proclaimed him a stream enterer. All others were skeptical and said something like if a habitual drunkard could be a stream enterer then who isnt? Buddha answered that question in two parts: prince Sorakani had always had unshakable confidence in Buddha, dhamma, and sangha tho his will to stop drinking was too weak while was still alive. However, a moment at his death bed, he determined to practice dhamma by holding the 5 precepts. He had every quality to be a stream enterer.

this is my own thought.. stream enterer is one who has the right view and starting to take that first step in the right direction.

this go back to the original question, will all actors go to hell? it is not a guarantee. Buddha only guaranteed rebirth in suffering realms for those who have commited Ānantarika-karma. Not all actors will go to hell because there are many factors to it as sample above. Also look up red bearded executioner.

Please do not wait until last minute to practice dhamma like prince sorakani because we do not know when that last moment will come. :-)

| improve this answer | |
-1

Little Buddha came out in 1993. Starring actors who portrayed characters including Siddartha himself. So you can go get your answer from the guy who wrote that Sutta and give him a piece of their minds. Be blessed.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Short, perfect and stunning answer. +1. ;) :) – user17511 Jan 13 at 9:29
-2

I hazard that the question is confused cos of the way that belief and humanity has changed since the Buddha's time. Actors that don't hold the wrong view that they will be be reborn into the deva realm don't have that wrong view. QED.

If you meant that the actor believes they will be reborn there - in this life, well is it even a wrong view if they are a good enough actor?

The questions seems wrong headed :)

| improve this answer | |
-2

The sutta appears to refer to an actor intoxicated & heedless with passion, aversion & delusion. It does not refer to all acting per se.

The breakup of the body, after death, means after the ending of a intoxicated & heedless acting performance. In other words, an actor that is addicted to deluded laughter and does not have any wholesomeness as a refuge for their life.

For example, today, in Hollywood, many (but not all) actors are so intoxicated with their superficial & sensual life that they have psychological, relationship &/or drug/alcohol problems; which is 'rebirth' in the lower realms.

For example, Robin Williams was a comedian with a history of substance abuse and later developed depression. It could be hypothesized an addiction to laughter lead to an avoidance of unpleasant feelings & an addiction to getting high on drugs which ultimately lead to depression.

For example, Jewish Israel-born actress Natalie Portman. She embraces those Jewish values that are wholesome, has always been concerned about avoiding roles leading to sexual objectification &, in particular, is critical of Israeli actions toward Palestinians; particularly boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It follows such an actress would not be reborn in hell, at least related to these matters, because each is devoid of chauvinism and delusion.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.