Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: secular sara.na.m in Pali, was Re: [Pali] Sara.na.m

Expand Messages
  • Ven. Yuttadhammo
    Dear Piya, ... True that it is different, but movies are usually like this... I think it is pretty close... 1) the idea that Angulimala s problems start with
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Piya,

      > I have the VCD myself (hope we are referring to the same thing).
      > However I notice
      > that the movie story is very much different from the Majjhima or
      > Commentary version.

      True that it is different, but movies are usually like this... I think
      it is pretty close...

      1) the idea that Angulimala's problems start with the teacher's wife
      2) the killing of 1000 people
      3) the attempted murder of the mother
      4) the scene where the Buddha tells Angulimala that he is the one who
      should stop.

      I particularly like the scene with the Lord Buddha, where Angulimala
      sees impermanence, suffering and non-self. Apparantly this is the
      same thing that happened with Luang Poh Sot, a very famous Samatha
      master in Thailand who went to practice at Wat Mahadhatu. He was
      famous for his mental images which he called "dhammakaya". When he
      was told to acknowledge "seeing", after a few days the "dhammakaya"
      suddenly disappeared and he was left scared. I'm told that his words
      of praise for the teaching at Wat Mahadhatu can still be found in
      section five.

      > In the movie Mara in the disguise of some high god seems to take all
      > the blame.

      In the Majjhima there is no mention of why he started killing... that
      only comes in the commentaries. One reason why it is different is
      that Thai people are very, very careful about the Lord Buddha. I once
      mentioned to a Thai monk about making a movie about the Lord Buddha's
      life. He turned to me and said "would you ever dare to pretend to be
      the Lord Buddha?" Apparently in the past versions of Angulimala, all
      they showed were the Buddha's feet, walking. In this one, they show
      His whole shape, and even features from far away. But I think there
      is reason they don't have the part with the Buddha talking to King

      > Anyway, it is a movie fiction and should be taken that way. For
      > those who do not know
      > the original story, it might have some impact that evil does not
      > pay.

      Respectfully, I think it has more impact than that. I think it does a
      good job of showing Buddhism from the outside. It shows wrong view
      and the result of wrong view; it shows how wonderful the Lord Buddha
      was without involving Him directly in the movie. It shows how pure is
      the going-forth into monkhood. The one thing I was not impressed with
      was Angulimala's soliloquy at the end, where he says that all beings
      come from the same source and when we die, we return to the same
      source. He says that suffering comes from thinking we are seperate
      entities. To be fair, it sounds like he is talking about the body,
      which of course does return to the same source, but the whole "we are
      one" thing seems more like the Upanisads than Buddhism...

      Please tell me, can you make out the words to the music in the


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.