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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.