Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I have demonstrated above, from the Lord Buddha's own lips, that both your mind and Jil's teacher are deluded. :buck: :wow:
It is quite beneficial for any person, layperson or monk, to denounce clinging to sensual pleasures. Of course it must come from their own insight. You can't make someone stop clinging just by talking about it...
too many sutras, why you don't just say the exact sutra?
you can quote suttas until the cows come home but it is still unrelated to Dhamma :coffee:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time, most of the people in Savatthi were excessively attached to sensuality. They lived delighting in, addicted to, infatuated with, fastened to, absorbed in sensuality. Then in the early morning, a large number of monks, having put on their robes and carrying their bowls and outer robes, went into Savatthi for alms. Having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from their alms round, they went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to the Blessed One: "Most of the people in Savatthi are excessively attached to sensuality. They live delighting in, addicted to, infatuated with, fastened to, absorbed in sensuality."
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: Clinging to sensuality, to sensual ties, seeing no blame in the fetter, never will those tied up in the fetter cross over the flood so great & wide. ~Ud 7.3
This is true regardless if a person is a layperson or a monk, you disagree? How so?
I don't mean any disrespect but I attended classes given by a rather strange teacher. IMO, on certain subjects - there's a fine line between a skilled teacher and creepy guy.
True, there is such a thing as a bad teacher. Sometimes crazy is wisdom, and sometimes crazy is just crazy. But, I would never try to come between a student and teacher without direct knowledge of a need. It's just not done. I might ask the student to talk to someone who does have direct experience with the teacher.
@Cinorjer- I agree. People sometime dismiss a person who might possess a unique point of view because the person doesn't fit their sensibilities. Their loss. I just think that a teacher has a great responsibility for how they present their lessons. Their words can affect some students' mental and emotional development.
Someone asked Master Tozan, "What is essence of Buddha-Nature?" Master Tozan answered, "The cowshit in the fields and the Buddha in the temples is the same."
Compared to this old fart of a Master, the one Jil is listening to is hardly extreme.
The Zen Master is fine because he is not disparaging others and speaking a koan. Indeed, the cowshit in the fields and the Buddha in the temples is the same but their similarities are not intended to mean some kind of repulsiveness or loathsomeness. It simply means both are impermanent, unsatisfactory, selfless, conditioned phenomena. Unlike the old fart, the Zen Master is not saying the Buddha statue stinks like cowshit.
Obviously, you have little respect for the Lord Buddha, regarding his instruction as an idiosyncratic opinion and regarding a fantasical "Zen Master" as an authority.
Worse, you exalt yourself by calling yourself a "scholar".
The Lord Buddha has provided clear instruction on "Non-Conflict". The Lord Buddha's path is threefold, namely, morality, concentration and insight.
The speech of the "teacher" was harsh speech and divisive speech. It did not follow the standards of the Lord Buddha. In short, it was deluded speech, the kind of speech of The Pope or The Dalai Lama when they become puritanical about sex.
Also, there was no truth in the statement. A common example is that of a knife. A knife can be used to cut fruit & vegetables so people can live or a knife can be used to murder people. A knife does not have one character.
Saliva is the same. It can be used to expel dirt from & cleanse the mouth or it can be used to lick an envelope, moisten a kiss or begin the digestive process.
Saliva does not possess the same nature is all circumstances.
It seems yourself, Seeker and the "teacher" are equality deluded, like the Three Stooges.
This is true regardless if a person is a layperson or a monk, you disagree? How so?
Of course I disagree.
The monks minds were like the Pope or Dalai Lama, blind to the realities of the world.
Then, after hearing the gossip of the monks, the Buddha gave a reply.
But the Buddha did not then walk to Savatthi and admonish those laypeople.
I have quoted MN 12 and MN 139 for your benefit. As a learner of sutta, I suggest you take them to heart rather than behave like a rebel.
These are for your instruction, for your benefit.
With metta
13. (4) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...
14. (5) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...
15. (6) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power...
How, bhikkhus, does there come to be extolling and disparaging and failure to teach only the Dhamma? When one says:
"All those engaged in the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desires - low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial - is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever and it is the wrong path (micchāpaṭipadā)", one disparages some.
And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling and disparaging but teaching only the Dhamma? When one instead says:
"The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever and it is the wrong path (micchāpaṭipadā)", then one teaches only the Dhamma.
MN 139: Aranavibhanga Sutta: The Exposition of Non-Conflict
Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth
This is true regardless if a person is a layperson or a monk, you disagree? How so?
Further, your question is irrelevent. It is non-sequitur
There may be a literal flood and a township of people must swim across a flooded river or face death. The reality is not all of the people in that township may be able to swim across that river.
Similarly, the Lord Buddha, in his wisdom, did not make all dhammas applicable to all people.
And what are delusions from a Buddhist standpoint? IMO lost in thought and reason. Different from ignorance in that with delusions you are lost from beliefs, where in ignorance you are just not knowing, and different from wrong views in that delusions cover a broader spectrum.
Everyone is deluded. Deluded arguing over who is more deluded will simply increase further delusion.
Definitely not. Your view is incorrect here. The Lord Buddha pointed out often what is delusion and non-delusion. He did this from compassion for our benefit.
And how do students engage with the teacher as opponents and not as friends?
There is the case where a teacher teaches the Dhamma to his students sympathetically, seeking their well-being, out of sympathy: 'This is for your well-being; this is for your happiness.'
His disciples do not listen or lend ear or apply their minds to gnosis. Turning aside, they stray from the Teacher's message. This is how students engage with the teacher as opponents and not as friends.
Therefore, Ananda, engage with me as friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness.
love is real and we'd all cross an ocean of spit to feel love. The problem is we look for it in the impermanent lover who then changes or leaves us. Instead of being free!
This is true regardless if a person is a layperson or a monk, you disagree? How so?
Further, your question is irrelevent. It is non-sequitur
There may be a literal flood and a township of people must swim across a flooded river or face death. The reality is not all of the people in that township may be able to swim across that river.
Similarly, the Lord Buddha, in his wisdom, did not make all dhammas applicable to all people.
:wtf:
Well then it's a perfect example of how deluded we are. I saw the quotes you gave and it did not mention anyone getting enlightenment. As I see it the bottom line is this, if you want get attain Nivrana, abandoning sense pleasure is required. That is what I was referring to when I said "do you disagree". Whether or not everyone can do that is irrelevant, the fact remains that it's required. How can one attain anuttara samyak sambodhi without abandoning sense pleasure? Simply stating a fact isn't disparaging anyone. It's a simple statement of the facts. If all you want is to be reborn in a good destination, then yea it probably does not matter that much, if you want anuttara samyak sambodhi, it matters a lot.
Wow, I sure did not expect this kind of response. I wonder why so many people seem uncomfortable with the question? My guess is many people like kissing and want to defend it. I did not react strongly to the question. For those of you who did, perhaps you should ask yourself why. Trust me, the teacher is a good one with all the credentials and I have great respect for him.
In the first case, your lover is asking you to engage in an unshared and non-mutual activity with an intention that is solely for his/her own gratification/amusement/control/power trip.
Notice how the mind projects that the first act is "bad" or "gross" or "exploitive", but the second one is "good", "yummy", "gentle".
@compassionate_warrior I made no value judgment beyond the exploitative nature of the transaction. If someone is physically capable of doing what he/she wants done but is asking you to do it for him/her instead, and without offering you anything in return for doing him/her this favor, this transaction is exploitative. "Please pick up my shoes" "You're capable of picking up your own shoes. I am not your personal servant."
As for a lover's kiss, if a lover's kiss is not a mutual reciprocal shared activity, it is legally defined as an incident of sexual assault, not a lover's kiss.
Its amazing all the different things we see, thank you for sharing aura your perspective was interesting. I didn't think of the saliva as exploitive I thought of it as sort of an intellectual bowl of saliva rather than a disrespective gesture.
In any interaction/exchange/transaction between human beings, the object of the transaction is a variable that is immaterial to the offer, counter-offer, and consideration. Whether the object of the transaction is saliva, socks, or an intellectual variable "Y" or anything else, "Do it for me" (whether pleaded or commanded) constitutes a proposal/offer. If there is no mutuality and there is no consideration offered, there is no exchange and the transaction constitutes servitude.
...if you want get attain Nivrana, abandoning sense pleasure is required.
Sure it is. But if you are still passionately kissing others it is obvious you do not really want to attain Nirvana. To the contrary, if you really want to attain Nirvana then you have naturally ceased passionate kissing others. Therefore, the deluded "teacher's" instruction is redundant. It serves only one purpose, which is to vent his delusion & disparage others (as the Buddha advised in MN 139). Its only outcome is, for the most part, to disparage others. The deluded "teacher" is possibly not yet free from sexuality himself/herself and therefore teaching for their own sake.
...Simply stating a fact isn't disparaging anyone. It's a simple statement of the facts.
It is not a statement of any facts. Kissing is an expression of care. My mother & father who cared for me kissed eachother. Kissing is part of the process of ordinary love.
The teacher is deluded and if you seek anuttara samyak sambodhi (unsurpassingly merciful and enlightened heart) then it is best to follow the instruction of a Buddha, as I quoted from MN 12, MN 139, the First Sermon and elsewhere.
Also, the Pali suttas are Hinayana. Please do not use them for Mahayana evangelism. In the Pali suttas, when asked will all beings be saved, the Buddha kept silent.
...if you want get attain Nivrana, abandoning sense pleasure is required.
Sure it is. But if you are still passionately kissing others it is obvious you do not really want to attain Nirvana. To the contrary, if you really want to attain Nirvana then you have naturally ceased passionate kissing others. Therefore, the deluded "teacher's" instruction is redundant.
If that is the case then wouldn't the Buddhas instructions to his monks, to abandon sense pleasures, also be redundant? Why is it redundant for a layperson and not redundant for a monk? I think it would be safe to say he had monks who still had desires of kissing women.
Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we "determine" cities, people, cattle -- everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.
Ajahn Chah
On that note, why do children consider kissing as repulsive?
There are priests or contemplatives who are drooling idiots, who have the perception of 'day' when it is night and of 'night' when it is day. This, I tell you, is their being in a dwelling of delusion.
But it's not the case that I am a drooling idiot. As for me, I have the perception of 'day' when it is day and of 'night' when it is night.
If anyone, when speaking rightly, were to say, 'A being not subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the benefit & happiness of many, out of sympathy for the world, for the welfare, benefit & happiness of human & divine beings,' he would rightly be speaking of me.
LOL! I certainly hope you take your own advice to others, jll ! :rolleyes:
Well spoken
Jll comes here posting that we are all deluded and simply expects us to accept what he said is true because his teacher said so.
But when we disagree with the condemnation of his teacher, Jll says we are very attached to our opinions.
:eek2:
72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.
73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries and honor among householders.
74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.
75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim but develop detachment instead.
i once saw on television a tribal woman spit in the dish she's making as apart of a recipe for fermentation process. And then they eat it. would anybody here eat the dish out of respect. I believe the Buddha would out of compassion. i'd prob just say i was full. Glad i'm not monk.
Give it up, Jll. Yes, insulting your teacher is wrong. To delight in calling people names is obviously wrong speach. But you know it's wrong, so that's what matters.
Some people seem to have widely missed the point of the teaching. From what you say, it's not saying that kissing is wrong. It's saying that our feelings of liking and disgust are empty, entirely dependent on our perceptions of what we want. So yes, it is a teaching about delusion. Our feelings of liking or getting pleasure from something are not to be trusted, but they're not to be avoided. Just examined. I like kissing. The wife and I swap spit all the time. While I don't mind that at all, of course I wouldn't get any pleasure from her handing me a glass of spit. That's my perceptions in action. But you know, there are people who actually would enjoy that and people who would not enjoy any kissing, according to stuff on the internet. Different perceptions. You can't expect everyone to like and dislike the same things.
That's not a deluded teaching. It's a teaching about emptiness. Since I don't know your teacher, I can't speak to his or her state of mind.
Dear Mr Dhamma Dhatu, you are very attached to your own opinions.
I have quoted extensively from the Lord Buddha's lips and offered no opinion apart from what has ushered from his lips :bowdown:
you teacher is an example of what the Buddha regarded as a "fool" and "drooling idiot" :buck:
Do you realize that how you say something is just as important as what you say? Sometimes even more important? No one is going to listen to you if they think you are an ass.
Comments
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Clinging to sensuality, to sensual ties, seeing no blame in the fetter, never will those tied up in the fetter cross over the flood so great & wide.
~Ud 7.3
This is true regardless if a person is a layperson or a monk, you disagree? How so?
Obviously, you have little respect for the Lord Buddha, regarding his instruction as an idiosyncratic opinion and regarding a fantasical "Zen Master" as an authority.
Worse, you exalt yourself by calling yourself a "scholar".
The Lord Buddha has provided clear instruction on "Non-Conflict". The Lord Buddha's path is threefold, namely, morality, concentration and insight.
The speech of the "teacher" was harsh speech and divisive speech. It did not follow the standards of the Lord Buddha. In short, it was deluded speech, the kind of speech of The Pope or The Dalai Lama when they become puritanical about sex.
Also, there was no truth in the statement. A common example is that of a knife. A knife can be used to cut fruit & vegetables so people can live or a knife can be used to murder people. A knife does not have one character.
Saliva is the same. It can be used to expel dirt from & cleanse the mouth or it can be used to lick an envelope, moisten a kiss or begin the digestive process.
Saliva does not possess the same nature is all circumstances.
It seems yourself, Seeker and the "teacher" are equality deluded, like the Three Stooges.
Regards
The monks minds were like the Pope or Dalai Lama, blind to the realities of the world.
Then, after hearing the gossip of the monks, the Buddha gave a reply.
But the Buddha did not then walk to Savatthi and admonish those laypeople.
I have quoted MN 12 and MN 139 for your benefit. As a learner of sutta, I suggest you take them to heart rather than behave like a rebel.
These are for your instruction, for your benefit.
With metta
There may be a literal flood and a township of people must swim across a flooded river or face death. The reality is not all of the people in that township may be able to swim across that river.
Similarly, the Lord Buddha, in his wisdom, did not make all dhammas applicable to all people.
:wtf:
Your all just quote Buddhist philosphy to increase your egos.
"nice" trolling...
actually the courage to lick the saliva in the cup is more worth it towards the path to liberation.
who's really deluded?
Well then it's a perfect example of how deluded we are. I saw the quotes you gave and it did not mention anyone getting enlightenment. As I see it the bottom line is this, if you want get attain Nivrana, abandoning sense pleasure is required. That is what I was referring to when I said "do you disagree". Whether or not everyone can do that is irrelevant, the fact remains that it's required. How can one attain anuttara samyak sambodhi without abandoning sense pleasure? Simply stating a fact isn't disparaging anyone. It's a simple statement of the facts. If all you want is to be reborn in a good destination, then yea it probably does not matter that much, if you want anuttara samyak sambodhi, it matters a lot.
I wonder why so many people seem uncomfortable with the question?
My guess is many people like kissing and want to defend it.
I did not react strongly to the question.
For those of you who did, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
Trust me, the teacher is a good one with all the credentials and
I have great respect for him.
If someone is physically capable of doing what he/she wants done but is asking you to do it for him/her instead, and without offering you anything in return for doing him/her this favor, this transaction is exploitative.
"Please pick up my shoes"
"You're capable of picking up your own shoes. I am not your personal servant."
As for a lover's kiss, if a lover's kiss is not a mutual reciprocal shared activity, it is legally defined as an incident of sexual assault, not a lover's kiss.
I'm talking you wake up in the morning and theres this little bowl with a placecard under it. The placecard says: saliva - drink me.
The teacher is deluded and if you seek anuttara samyak sambodhi (unsurpassingly merciful and enlightened heart) then it is best to follow the instruction of a Buddha, as I quoted from MN 12, MN 139, the First Sermon and elsewhere.
Also, the Pali suttas are Hinayana. Please do not use them for Mahayana evangelism. In the Pali suttas, when asked will all beings be saved, the Buddha kept silent.
Best wishes
Ajahn Chah
On that note, why do children consider kissing as repulsive?
you teacher is an example of what the Buddha regarded as a "fool" and "drooling idiot" :buck:
LOL! I certainly hope you take your own advice to others, jll !
:rolleyes:
Jll comes here posting that we are all deluded and simply expects us to accept what he said is true because his teacher said so.
But when we disagree with the condemnation of his teacher, Jll says we are very attached to our opinions.
:eek2:
It is benevolent pointing out deluded & blind power hungry "teachers".
If other people kiss, what business is that of ours? :-/
Awakened Buddhas do not harm/belittle the relationships of others. Instead, they protect.
May you learn the benefit of humility & gentle speech in this lifetime.
The facts are your original post was not an example of how deluded we are. :wave:
The Lord Buddha's moist lips censured your post appropriately & repeatedly. :bowdown:
"Idiot compassion" would be unskilful in these circumstances.
LOL ! je ne comprends pas.
:buck:
Some people seem to have widely missed the point of the teaching. From what you say, it's not saying that kissing is wrong. It's saying that our feelings of liking and disgust are empty, entirely dependent on our perceptions of what we want. So yes, it is a teaching about delusion. Our feelings of liking or getting pleasure from something are not to be trusted, but they're not to be avoided. Just examined. I like kissing. The wife and I swap spit all the time. While I don't mind that at all, of course I wouldn't get any pleasure from her handing me a glass of spit. That's my perceptions in action. But you know, there are people who actually would enjoy that and people who would not enjoy any kissing, according to stuff on the internet. Different perceptions. You can't expect everyone to like and dislike the same things.
That's not a deluded teaching. It's a teaching about emptiness. Since I don't know your teacher, I can't speak to his or her state of mind.