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

Re: [SanghaOnline] Re: Nanayana Many and Various Doctrines

Expand Messages
  • Panya Rakkhita
    Dear venerable, thank you very much for your kind answer. with metta, Panyarakkhita ... Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear venerable,

      thank you very much for your kind answer.

      with metta,
      Panyarakkhita


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here
      Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on Yahoo! India Click here

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Panya Rakkhita
      Dear Ven. sir, If Devadatta has so much punya that he can even become a pacceka buddha in the future then why should he suffer in hell. Can t his punya free
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Ven. sir,

        If Devadatta has so much punya that he can even become a pacceka buddha in the future then why should he suffer in hell. Can't his punya free him from the state of woe? The fact he is suffering in hell with all his punya and parami does it mean that his evil is heavier than the merits which is capable of enlightening him?

        with metta
        panyarakkhita


        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here
        Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on Yahoo! India Click here

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Sayadaw Nanda Siddhi
        Thank you for this answer to Rev! for us.
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you for this answer to Rev! for us.

          >From: "Bhikkhu Pesala" <pesala@...>
          >Reply-To: SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com
          >To: SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [SanghaOnline] Re: Nanayana Many and Various Doctrines
          >Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:47:32 -0000
          >
          >I think having a sense of humour is essential when dealing with those
          >of different views.
          >
          >Attachment to views is the most difficult thing to overcome. If wre
          >attached to our own view, then we are likely to react with aversion
          >instead of with compassion and tolerance when we are confronted by
          >teachings that misrepresent the Buddha.
          >
          >Tolerance doesn't mean that we have to accept every viewpoint as
          >equally valid. We need to use our wisdom to discriminate between what
          >is Dhamma and what is not Dhamma, but not in a harsh way.
          >
          >My favourite Zen story is about two monks:
          >
          >*****
        • Bhikkhu Pesala
          It seems that the Mahaayaanists on E-Sangha Forum don t have a sense of humour. They deleted my same post there on the Nanayaana, and suspended my account for
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 13, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            It seems that the Mahaayaanists on E-Sangha Forum don't have a sense of
            humour. They deleted my same post there on the Nanayaana, and suspended
            my account for three days for sect-bashing (not the first time this has
            happened).

            They obviously could not distinguish between the Mahaayaana and the
            Maanayaana and thought I was criticising the Mahaayaana. (~_~) Now why
            would I do that?

            What I do criticise is bogus sutras that threaten rebirth in hell if you
            do not believe in those Sutras, which they allege are the words of the
            Buddha. One can find such threats in the Mahaayaana Sutras, but I never
            came across any such threats in genuine teachings of the Buddha.

            The Buddha warned that those who hold wrong views are in danger of
            falling into hell unless they relinquish those wrong views. Those who
            slander the Buddha or virtuous monks with baseless allegations are also
            in danger of falling into hell.

            The Buddha never threatened anyone, "If you do not believe me you will
            fall into hell." On the contrary, he urged people to make a thorough
            examination of the teacher and of his teachings.

            --- In SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com, "Sayadaw Nanda e
            Siddhi" <nanda_siddhi@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you for this answer to Rev! for us.
          • sam he
            Dear Ven. Pesala, I read your post on nanayaana for me and many others(my friend) it is very useful. It gives us direction as to how to distinguish practices
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Ven. Pesala,

              I read your post on nanayaana for me and many others(my friend) it is very useful. It gives us direction as to how to distinguish practices that based on fact, can give immediate result and consequently need to be done and from the one that was merely of myth and bogus.

              Sam

              Bhikkhu Pesala <pesala@...> wrote:
              It seems that the Mahaayaanists on E-Sangha Forum don't have a sense of
              humour. They deleted my same post there on the Nanayaana, and suspended
              my account for three days for sect-bashing (not the first time this has
              happened).

              They obviously could not distinguish between the Mahaayaana and the
              Maanayaana and thought I was criticising the Mahaayaana. (~_~) Now why
              would I do that?

              What I do criticise is bogus sutras that threaten rebirth in hell if you
              do not believe in those Sutras, which they allege are the words of the
              Buddha. One can find such threats in the Mahaayaana Sutras, but I never
              came across any such threats in genuine teachings of the Buddha.

              The Buddha warned that those who hold wrong views are in danger of
              falling into hell unless they relinquish those wrong views. Those who
              slander the Buddha or virtuous monks with baseless allegations are also
              in danger of falling into hell.

              The Buddha never threatened anyone, "If you do not believe me you will
              fall into hell." On the contrary, he urged people to make a thorough
              examination of the teacher and of his teachings.

              --- In SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com, "Sayadaw Nanda e
              Siddhi" <nanda_siddhi@...> wrote:
              >
              > Thank you for this answer to Rev! for us.






              ---------------------------------
              On Yahoo!7
              360° new features: Blog polls, visitor stats custom themes and more!

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • markgoris
              Dear Bhikkhu, Dear Friends, How true the words of Bhikkhu Pesala are: the lacking of a sense ofhumour by many Buddhists. I have been practicing for many years
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 14, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Bhikkhu,
                Dear Friends,
                How true the words of Bhikkhu Pesala are: the lacking of a sense
                ofhumour by many Buddhists. I have been practicing for many years
                Zazen(Zen-Buddhist) meditation, and always it struck me on "how
                correctZen-buddhist" are! There is no other truth than theirs...So,
                about 5years ago, I came in contact with the teachings of Ajahn Chah,
                and theThai-forest tradition, these opened my mind in a completely new
                way.When I started pointing out the books and teachings in these
                tradition,many fellow "Zen Buddhist" pointed out to me how sad it was
                that I took"the wrong path", and that I didn't understand anything at
                all aboutBuddhism, liberation, enlightenment, meditation etc. Theravada?
                Onlyfor self-liberation etc! But Zen-Buddhism the one and only big
                thing!Poor Hinayana, poor Theravada...In Mahayana we try to save all
                livingbeings and liberate them. But, shouldn't we first liberate
                ourselves,before we are able to save others? Liberating means: open your
                heartand mind to others and the other traditions. Sadly many Buddhists
                don't understand this. They are: Zen, or Tibetan or...nothing else! Do
                they really understand the meaning of the liberation teachings of the
                Buddha? How can one look down on another tradition - I don't understand.
                The rich and wonderful teaching of Theravada, have changed my life
                completely. That doesn't mean that I don't listen anymore to
                Zen-teachers. But, I believe one should open one's heart and mind to
                really underestand the Buddha-word.
                Metta,
                Mark
                '--- In SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Pesala" <pesala@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > It seems that the Mahaayaanists on E-Sangha Forum don't have a sense
                of
                > humour. They deleted my same post there on the Nanayaana, and
                suspended
                > my account for three days for sect-bashing (not the first time this
                has
                > happened).
                >
                > They obviously could not distinguish between the Mahaayaana and the
                > Maanayaana and thought I was criticising the Mahaayaana. (~_~) Now why
                > would I do that?
                >
                > What I do criticise is bogus sutras that threaten rebirth in hell if
                you
                > do not believe in those Sutras, which they allege are the words of the
                > Buddha. One can find such threats in the Mahaayaana Sutras, but I
                never
                > came across any such threats in genuine teachings of the Buddha.
                >
                > The Buddha warned that those who hold wrong views are in danger of
                > falling into hell unless they relinquish those wrong views. Those who
                > slander the Buddha or virtuous monks with baseless allegations are
                also
                > in danger of falling into hell.
                >
                > The Buddha never threatened anyone, "If you do not believe me you will
                > fall into hell." On the contrary, he urged people to make a thorough
                > examination of the teacher and of his teachings.
                >
                > --- In SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com, "Sayadaw Nanda e
                > Siddhi" nanda_siddhi@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Thank you for this answer to Rev! for us.
                >
              • Jose M.
                Dear Bhante Pesala, Those who slander the Buddha or virtuous monks with baseless allegations are also in danger of falling into hell. What is the difference
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 15, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Bhante Pesala,

                  Those who slander the Buddha or virtuous monks with baseless allegations are also
                  in danger of falling into hell.

                  What is the difference between slandering the Buddha or a virtuous monk and slandering a normal person?

                  Jose M.


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Bhikkhu Pesala
                  To: SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:04 AM
                  Subject: [SanghaOnline] Re: Nanayana Many and Various Doctrines


                  It seems that the Mahaayaanists on E-Sangha Forum don't have a sense of
                  humour. They deleted my same post there on the Nanayaana, and suspended
                  my account for three days for sect-bashing (not the first time this has
                  happened).


                  .



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Bhikkhu Pesala
                  The result of any kamma depends on the virtue of the person it is aimed at. In the matter of wholesome kamma: Offering alms to a Buddha gives greater fruit
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 19, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The result of any kamma depends on the virtue of the person it is aimed
                    at. In the matter of wholesome kamma:

                    Offering alms to a Buddha gives greater fruit that offering alms to an
                    Arahant disciple of the Buddha.

                    Offering alms to an Arahant gives greater fruit than offering alms to a
                    Stream-winner.

                    Offering alms to a virtuous monk who is striving for the realisation of
                    Stream-winning gives greater fruit than offering alms to an ordinary
                    person who is striving for sensual pleasures. For details, please the
                    Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta of the Majjhimanikaya.

                    In the matter of unwholesome kamma (immoral deeds such as slander), it
                    is the same. The results in terms of suffering are far greater if
                    slandering a virtuous monk than slandering an ordinary person. However,
                    if a lay person is a Noble One, the consequences are still very serious,
                    more serious than slandering an ordinary monk who is not virtuous, and
                    who has genuine defects.

                    In speaking true words that lead others to look down on someone, "He is
                    a thief," "She is a liar," etc., the result will also be bad, unless the
                    intention was wholesome, for example, to warn others about a person's bad
                    character. True speech is not slander, but it can still be unwholesome
                    kamma if spoken out of malice, pride, or contempt.

                    To slander the Buddha is a very serious error, as the Buddha had no
                    defects at all. It is like throwing away cool drinking water in the
                    desert. One who says that he taught what he did not teach, or that he
                    practised what he did not practise, slanders the Buddha. See the Abhasita
                    Sutta.

                    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html

                    A virtuous monk tries his utmost to uphold the 227 Vinaya rules as
                    prescribed by the Buddha. He is therefore possessed of moral shame and
                    fear of wrong doing. Even if he is not a Noble One, he respects the
                    Buddha's instructions, and works for the preservation and propagation of
                    the Dhamma. Whatever faults he might have, he is still praiseworthy.
                    These days it is hard to find virtuous monks who try to follow the
                    training rules. Why should anyone slander such a monk?

                    As for ordinary persons, they are usually striving only for the enjoyment
                    of sensual pleasures. However, if they are virtuous persons who observe
                    the five precepts, slandering them with untrue words will also have
                    serious effects.

                    "A normal person" these days does not observe the five precepts. They
                    will do many blameworthy deeds, and will fail to do many praiseworthy
                    deeds. One should blame the blameworthy, and praise the praiseworthy.
                    Slander of immoral persons with untrue words is still the unwholesome
                    kamma of pisunavaca. However, its consequences are less severe than
                    slandering the virtuous due to the weak moral character of the person
                    slandered.

                    A virtuous monk is like a village well where anyone can come to refresh
                    their thirst and get clean water for cooking, washing, or bathing.
                    Polluting a public well with foul things is an unwholesome action with
                    serious consequences for the entire village.

                    A normal person is like a water pot kept in someone's home. Polluting a
                    water pot with foul things is an unwholesome action that may harm only
                    one person or his family if they drink that polluted water. If they are
                    wise, they will not drink it, but they will just go to the well and fetch
                    some clean water.

                    The teachings of the Buddha preserved by the monks are like a huge
                    mountain reservoir from which all of the wells in the country are
                    replenished. If one pollutes that mountain reservoir with heretical
                    teachings, everyone in the country will suffer. Either they will be
                    thirsty, or they will get sick. That is why slandering the Buddha by
                    teaching what is not Dhamma is such a serious crime.

                    As for polluting the water in a toilet. It is no crime at all. The toilet
                    is full of foul things already. The only consequence is that one will get
                    a bad smell for a moment, and have to flush the toilet with clean water.

                    --- In SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com, "Jose M." <joe_lop_neo@...> wrote:
                    >

                    > What is the difference between slandering the Buddha or a virtuous monk
                    and slandering a normal person?
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.