Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Tags:

Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Johann
« on: May 25, 2020, 08:17:06 AM »

Nyom Danilo ,

What Atma thinks: That the holding on views "this is right, nothing else", is something one easy get trapped into. Being so one feels even disappointed about the Sublime Buddha, seeing more and more "contratictions". Things "aren't" but have causes and effects.

How many Suttas would one be able to count where, taken things out of context taken, generalizing them, the Buddha would appeare as someone not of integrity (behaviour). One may even think on the many occations where the Buddha used public disregard for one to come to mind. Think on the story where the Buddha encouraged an old abounded father to heavily blame their sons in the assembling of the whole public. Engouragement to disintegrity?

One point, for sure, required to consider, is that a Asekha does not act on defilements.

Forcing, or giving food into one of the three kinds of conceit, also such is required to direct someone on more subtile ground, as the opposite can be required.

Would your mother, father, teacher who could really cut foolish off, ever look as having acted righteous?

An importand point, not to forget, is that the Sublime Buddha "never" (actually he did in regard of Sangha business) required anybody to act in ways which easy could lead to worldly lose, of which includes honor.

Maybe the topic Der Erhabene Buddha als der größte Angeber, und das Fehlen von Eifersucht helps.

Yet there are those who, of course take one the opposite view, saying the Buddha wanted others to speak out, advocating the other extreme, view.

Silas, as a means of controll and avoid missconduct and Kamma (mind) aren't the same, or at leadt not easy to seen and one who has not arrived at the source, and knowing their mind.

Is Nyom Danilo able to "grasp" the point here?

A broadly not beloved physic teacher of my person, "rude", "dominant", "heartless", loved to say "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi to justify certain things, yet it's not a matter of right but a matter of having arrived at a real unselfishvand compassioned point or not.

So my person likes to leave this Sutta for consideration behind here:

Suta Sutta: On What is Heard , of which might be good to apply for high meritorious deeds like to share ones merits ("one who thinks that it has the object to pose: should blame: his demerits") or if out of compassion correct ones views.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"I do not say, brahman, that everything that has been seen should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been seen should not be spoken about. I do not say that everything that has been heard... everything that has been sensed... everything that has been cognized should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been cognized should not be spoken about.

"When, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease [not to speak of being motivated by such!], then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about.

"When, for one who speaks of what has been heard... what has been sensed... what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease, then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about."

Or should Atma better have told: "Don't ask me that?", leaving one a beloved stand?
Posted by: Danilo
« on: May 25, 2020, 03:12:14 AM »

What Bhante would say about the following suttas?

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

“Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of no integrity.’ Which four?

“There is the case where a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals another person’s bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s bad points in full & in detail, without omission, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’

“And further, a person of no integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal another person’s good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’

“And further, a person of no integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal his own bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’

“And further, a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals his own good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of no integrity.’

“Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of no integrity.’

“Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of integrity.’ Which four?

“There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal another person’s bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’

“And further, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another person’s good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person’s good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’

“And further, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’

“And further, a person of integrity, when asked, doesn’t reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, ‘This venerable one is a person of integrity.’

“Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as ‘a person of integrity.’”

and the occasions where the Buddha tried to avoid pointing out faults in someone's views:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

“Enough, headman, put that aside. Don’t ask me that.”
Posted by: Johann
« on: February 04, 2020, 12:17:10 PM »


So I will have to walk on Noble 8 fold path first and then only my right-intent will be meritious for me and others.

Before attaining nibbana, my right-intent would only be to " make myself less angry, ••••• abandoning defilements and causes of defilements ".

Liberation, Nyom Vivek , is the result of right intention (sankappo/cetana), based on right view. It's not so that liberation is for the sake of any cetana, not so that the training is taken on to gain lesser, or different, but to no more take on anything at all.

Yet one could feel harmed, being adressed by harsh words, and may tried to silent the Buddha with his "own" saying, like this Jains :

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

..."Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut[1] were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."...
Posted by: Johann
« on: February 04, 2020, 12:13:26 PM »

That, Nyom Danilo hits the question Atma raised before here:

What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed? And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Vivek , according to your views? What then did the Buddha taught in that relations?

Does Nyom thing that the quote is direct connected with "right/good" intention?

Is there any being who wouldn't try to do best according to his/her understanding?
Atma doesn't think that even if most might teach wrong Dhamma would be aware that doing so.

Once "good" intention does not necessary mean that it is a gain or loss for others, many, and for him/herself.

The quote, how ever, leads where Atma thought to guid toward since, like a austrian proverb says: "stupidy (not/wrong knowing/ignorance) does not protect from penalties (bad effects)"

Those questions makes me turn to MN 61 .
If there is a trace of harm or prejudice in one's intention, that would be a demeritous deed, I suppose.

May Nyom Danilo never fall into doubt (again). Yes, neither harm of any kind, toward others, toward oneself, that is the essence of right intention.


Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

“And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.” SN 45.8
Posted by: Vivek
« on: February 04, 2020, 11:22:21 AM »

I think it's good if is motivated by right intention.

AND

Quote
If there is a trace of harm or prejudice in one's intention, that would be a demeritous deed, I suppose.

NO

I ham an ignorant person. I have intention of attaining nibbana. I have intention of helping others. My ego and my lord ignorance prevents me in doing so. Not only prevent, rather guide me under a " HALLUCINATION " of helping others in showing them a right path but in reality! it's the opposite.

Even this post is written with 'right intention', but it might bring conflicts, clashes, quarrels among us.

Not only me, rather everyone tries to live with "seemingly right intention", still clashes occurs.

That's why!

Buddha gave path of 8 parts, which must be fully satisfied.

Merely a part or a sub-part (intention of view) is not gonna help others in attaining nibbana.

So I will have to walk on Noble 8 fold path first and then only my right-intent will be meritious for me and others.

Before attaining nibbana, my right-intent would only be to " make myself less angry, ••••• abandoning defilements and causes of defilements ".

I don't see any gain in merit, if I am not free from anger while I still preach others to not get angry-- RATHER IT WOULD BE EXACT OPPOSITE . Yes!, I might preach to TRY to not get angry just like I am trying, it might result in any merit if and only if while preaching, I am also enhancing my "abandoning" skill........
Posted by: Danilo
« on: February 04, 2020, 09:46:01 AM »

That, Nyom Danilo hits the question Atma raised before here:

What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed? And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Vivek , according to your views? What then did the Buddha taught in that relations?

Does Nyom thing that the quote is direct connected with "right/good" intention?

Is there any being who wouldn't try to do best according to his/her understanding?
Atma doesn't think that even if most might teach wrong Dhamma would be aware that doing so.

Once "good" intention does not necessary mean that it is a gain or loss for others, many, and for him/herself.

The quote, how ever, leads where Atma thought to guid toward since, like a austrian proverb says: "stupidy (not/wrong knowing/ignorance) does not protect from penalties (bad effects)"

Those questions makes me turn to MN 61 .
If there is a trace of harm or prejudice in one's intention, that would be a demeritous deed, I suppose.
Posted by: Johann
« on: February 03, 2020, 09:36:34 PM »

That, Nyom Danilo hits the question Atma raised before here:

What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed? And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Vivek , according to your views? What then did the Buddha taught in that relations?

Does Nyom thing that the quote is direct connected with "right/good" intention?

Is there any being who wouldn't try to do best according to his/her understanding?
Atma doesn't think that even if most might teach wrong Dhamma would be aware that doing so.

Once "good" intention does not necessary mean that it is a gain or loss for others, many, and for him/herself.

The quote, how ever, leads where Atma thought to guid toward since, like a austrian proverb says: "stupidy (not/wrong knowing/ignorance) does not protect from penalties (bad effects)"
Posted by: Danilo
« on: February 03, 2020, 01:50:39 AM »

I think it's good if is motivated by right intention.

“Monks, any monks who explain not-Dhamma as not-Dhamma are practicing for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, for the benefit of many people, for the welfare & happiness of human beings & devas. They amass much merit and help this True Dhamma to remain.”

“Monks, any monks who explain Dhamma as Dhamma are practicing for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, for the benefit of many people, for the welfare & happiness of human beings & devas. They amass much merit and help this True Dhamma to remain.”
Posted by: Johann
« on: January 23, 2020, 05:40:04 PM »

You should get in touch with each other.

Best wishes for Nyoms Vivek next hide&seek. May the hidden be found and release gained.
Posted by: Vivek
« on: January 23, 2020, 05:29:13 PM »

Being a small-fry, I can say that "householders of the so-called-human society have made some rules and regulations for 'what seems to them as right' flow of society" and to maintain that seemingly-right, various leaders have made various arrangements/laws within their territory to satisfy their ego.

Surely clear that everybody acts as he/she wishes (and bears also the consequences of it)
AND
Quote
"Free speech": "Speak what you like: no bad effects for you"?

These types of self-contradicting thoughts, "where in 1 thought, homeless-meditator tries to perceive right view and in 2nd thought, homeless-meditator perceives from the point-of-view/seeing-actions of wrong-dwellers", usually appear when a homeless-meditator thinks by relaxing his body, lying down either on grass or on plain-open-field.

Better, if there will be no further reaction in brain leading to some karma, better if thinker thinks next that, " whatever happens! Till now, experience and teachings say that •••1st thought•••", better if thinker doesn't think next that, "they must be punished, householders must make rules, more rules to stop wrong-dwellers.....".

From experience, I warn you, uncle J, when homeless-meditator starts thinking what shouldn't be thought, when homeless-meditator stops thinking what must have been thought, it starts chain-reaction of hatred, a deep chain-reaction of 'THE-REACTION'. It will never stop and will make homeless-meditator more LAZY(pramaadi), more aggressive,••• more defilements.

It's better if you stop 2nd thought, it won't suit you-- a homeless meditator.

(Stopped playing hide&seek of ≈15 days.)
Posted by: Johann
« on: January 23, 2020, 04:14:12 PM »

What should that be "human rights"? A free ticket, Nyom Alex? Surely clear that everybody acts as he/she wishes (and bears also the consequences of it) but no idea of what "human right" should be. No consequences? "Free speech": "Speak what you like: no bad effects for you"?
Posted by: Visitor
« on: January 23, 2020, 03:00:00 PM »

Surely, not just talk rather guide Nyom Alex ^-^ , if he has offended.

Otherwise still, it's human rights to do whatever one wants(especially elders-in-age).


(overqualified today)
Be happy,

--someone.
Posted by: Johann
« on: January 23, 2020, 09:31:44 AM »

So what does Nyom Alex think, would it be proper for Atma to talk further with Nyom, or not so proper, just let him tell what he desires to tell?
Posted by: Visitor
« on: January 23, 2020, 07:49:34 AM »

What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed?

It would be exactly like, "how theravada was banned in Nepal",  "how adi-shankracharya completely disbandoned and MURDERED theravada from india" and "how adi-shankracharya adopted sexual-'tantrism/mantrism/yantrism' to be dhamma".

Quote
And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Alex, according to your views?

Householder criticizing a monk because of "holding wrong views and monk is right" OR "holding right views and monk is wrong". In both cases, monk is not to be confused, worried, concerned about sayings. If householder is ready to listen, it can be sorted out by having a dhamma discussion at suitable time, at suitable place.

Still, monk must not make arguments because monkhood was taken only for removing own's defilements, for providing peaceful-vibrant-food(METTA) to all. Dhamma, if not today then later, will have to be rediscovered, re-realized and re-propagated by next genius scientist, gem, buddha OR by any other means.

Still, IF ASKED,  monk must preach dhamma(as far as experienced or learnt) only, by indirectly pointing out defaults in the tradition/practice(if any)..... but it might also lead to different views(just like how different schools emerged in buddhism). Alas! It's better to have only remain silent and if tradition-bounded, to have a common teaching discussed before-hand to be preached........ but it might lead to wrong teachings being preached like by hindu brahmins.

So, in my view and experience-- for monk-- better to eat once a day(if available/received), meditate full to heart, remain joyful, enthusiastic.

Good morning,
Will come-back later(might be tomorrow).....today is interview :), yesterday was a fraud company.

  :) :) Metta.
Posted by: Johann
« on: January 23, 2020, 07:07:52 AM »

What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed? And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Alex, according to your views? What then did the Buddha taught in that relations?