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

Re: [dsg] Re: Three cheers for Kom!! For Icaro and All.

Expand Messages
  • Eddie Lou
    Hi, James, That reminds me of the Lent set by Buddha because of complaints about Bhikkus trek and travel all over the paddy fields damaging crops. Bhikkus
    Message 1 of 107 , Apr 1, 2006
      Hi, James,

      That reminds me of the Lent set by Buddha because of complaints about Bhikkus trek and travel all over the paddy fields damaging crops.

      Bhikkus actually should be humble with no or less ego centric, lobha, dosa, moha, mana, understand more Dhamma than laypeople. Sanghas or Bhikkus should lead us and impart dhamma teachings to us.

      Less or no rituals, down to earth teaching us the real and right stuff which is Dhamma. This high, this low, caste system, class system should be kepl low as possible, if not totally out.

      With all due respect, unless Icaro knows something I do not know yet. I am still learning and hope to learn from you, Icaro. I learn a lot from a lot of more learned persons in DSG, like Nina, Sarah, Christine, Icaro, Htoo Naing, buddhatrue(James), etc, to name just a few. I still think mana and ego is hard to get rid of but less is better, IMHO. Correct me if I am wrong.

      James, what you did is correct, do more neutral thing IMHO. Those monks I think can not be taught lesson. Further pursuit, can only create more headache and maybe akusala. Like Icaro said it is none of our business beyond our watch, let their monks superior take care of them or let Kamma and Dhamma which has no bias, take care of them. Also I heard splitting or wedging Sangha unity or group is enough akusala to go to Hell, which I understand is not eternal like other religions taught so. This eternal hell going on account of splitting, is another misgiving I have about. Just my opinion.


      buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote: Hi Icaro,

      I know I am going to regret writing this post, but here goes
      anyway. Icaro, I don't know where you are getting your thinking
      about monks, but monks are not at a "higher level" than laypeople
      simply because they are wearing a robe. Actually, to compare anyone
      to anyone else in such a manner (as being "higher", "lower", or
      the "same" level) is conceit and something the Buddha specifically
      taught against. Monks are supposed to be humble and are not
      supposed to place themselves above others- be those others
      laypeople, novice monks, initiates, or ANYONE! You speak of monks
      in a culturally biased way which is not in accordance with the

      That monk who was nasty to me should not have been so. He didn't
      teach me any kind of lesson other than realizing that he had yet to
      overcome his ego. Actually, I should have taught him a lesson and
      refused to leave. I should have snatched the coffee right out of
      his hand and drank it! Then he would have been given the chance to
      learn humility and deference of ego. Actually, since I walked away,
      I did nothing but reinforce his ego.

      Laypeople don't owe monks anything and the Buddha taught that monks
      should be respected only to the extent that they earn that respect.


      New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sarah abbott
      Dear Joop, ... ... .... S: My understanding is that an accumulation is a citta or cetasika, i.e an ultimate reality. Take attachment now - it s real.
      Message 107 of 107 , May 24, 2006
        Dear Joop,

        --- Joop <jwromeijn@...> wrote:
        > Hallo Sarah
        > An (any) accumulation of cittas or cetasikas is not a ultimate
        > reality for two reasons:
        > - it is not arising and falling away within some milli-seconds
        > - it does not occur on the list of 89/121 cittas+52 cetasikas+28
        > rupas+1 nibbana
        > It is not ultimate as a accumulation; you say "it REFERS to to all
        > cittas and cetasikas"; yes: but it IS not a citta or cetasika, isn't
        > that correct?
        S: My understanding is that an accumulation is a citta or cetasika, i.e an
        ultimate reality. Take attachment now - it's real. It's also an
        accumulation. We don't have to use any particular word, but when
        attachment arises, it 'piles up' or accumulates, like DSG posts!

        > So it must be a concept.
        > OR it belongs to a third class of realities, together with 'kamma'
        S: Kamma is also an ultimate reality. Each cetana arising now is 'kamma'.
        Those cetanas arising with the javana cittas have a dual function of not
        only 'co-ordinating' other mental factors, but also of 'willing' kusala or
        akusala. In some instances, this cetana may be powerful enough to bring
        results later on. No matter what kind of cetana or kamma it is, it's still
        an ultimate reality.

        I agree that the terms 'kamma' and 'accumulation' as used in conventional
        speech are not representing precise realities.

        > About #58095 ("On spice and paradoxes") Only a remark on your last
        > words: "Often such paradoxes arise because of our very limited
        > understanding."
        > J: That's possible but you seem to suppose that a paradox is
        > something unpleasant, something to devoid: not to me.
        > You say "A desire to give up desires is lobha"; and I add: it is also
        > a logical paradox in the way Bertrand Russell talked about. But of
        > course ging up desires is more important that logic.
        S: Good points. Yes, a paradox may not be bad! Sometimes wholesome chanda
        is also translated as 'desire' (rather inaccurately imho). So it may be
        wholesome chanda to give up desire which is being referred to, as in the
        SN sutta I referred to recently in my posts on 'Any cheers for
        Tanha.....'. (Your comments would be welcome on that too:-)).

        Thanks for these clarifications and comments, Joop.


        p.s Could you v.briefly elaborate on your Bertrand Russell comment above
        in context. My father was a great B.R. fan, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
        anything I ever read which wasn't much.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.