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.
There is a reason why sati(mindfulness) is always paired with sampajanna(clear comprehension). Then you won't end up mindfully sweeping with your dong hanging out.
There is nothing more valuable than a controlled and skillfully directed mind. To tame one's mind does not happen only in meditation, that is just one specific training. It can be likened to learning to play tennis. One works out with a trainer, again and again, until one has found one's balance and aptitude, and can actually play in a tennis match. Our match for taming the mind happens in day-to-day living, in all situations we encounter.
The greatest support we can have is mindfulness, which means being totally present in each moment. If the mind remains centered then it can't make up stories about the injustice of the world or one's friends, or about one's desires, or one's lamentations. All these mind-made stories would fill many volumes, but we are mindful such verbalizations stop. "Mindful" is being fully absorbed in the moment, leaving no room for anything else. We are filled with the momentary happening, whether that may be standing or sitting or lying down, being comfortable or uncomfortable, feeling pleasant or unpleasant. Whichever it may be, it is a non-judgmental awareness, "knowing only," without evaluation.
Clear comprehension brings evaluation. We comprehend the purpose of our thought, speech or action, whether we are using skillful means or not and whether we have actually achieved the required results. One needs some distance to oneself in order to be able to evaluate dispassionately. If one is right in the middle, it's very difficult to get an objective view. Mindfulness coupled with clear comprehension provides one with the necessary distance, the objectivity, the dispassion.
Being mindfull isn't and end in itself. It's a tool to help our practice and not the practice itself.
I think it's a bit more than a "tool". As the suttas say, mindfulness is the path to the Deathless ( ie enlightenment ).
It probably depends which Buddhist tradition we're discussing though.
@SpinyNorman said: @vinlyn said:
Being mindfull isn't and end in itself. It's a tool to help our practice and not the practice itself.
Now I know that you just like to argue with me. I didn't write any such thing. I believe Chaz did, yet you attribute it to me. Your mindfulness is slipping!
Thas wy I tri two bee mindfull too proff reed my postals.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I think if one were always mindful after following the Buddhas prescription then they could be considered awake.
I consider mindfulness the same as awareness and I figure the more aware we are the more awake we are.
I could be mindful that I'm behaving badly and go on doing it but that awareness isn't tempered with all the other spokes of the wheel. In that, it is a little less mindful.
@how said:
For me, meditation is really our manifestation of the whole of the 8FP, with mindfulness being no less essential than any of the other 7.
I agree, and it's puzzled me how in this thread some members have tried to downplay the importance of mindfulness, or don't think the effort is worthwhile.
@SpinyNorman said: I agree, and it's puzzled me how in this thread some members have tried to downplay the importance of mindfulness, or don't think the effort is worthwhile.
I hope my post didn't give you that impression. I think mindfulness is a vital tool to our practice. I just caution people not to think that mindfulness is all there is to a Buddhist practice.
I hope my post didn't give you that impression. I think mindfulness is a vital tool to our practice. I just caution people not to think that mindfulness is all there is to a Buddhist practice.
I agree. I haven't seen many posts here which have said that mindfulness is not important or worthwhile. Part of it's been a debate about whether it is something you should do constantly during all waking hours, or something you "turn on" when needed. Should one give it a rest for a while from time to time.
It looked to me like the majority of dogs in Thailand are feral. Mostly living alongside people like rats do. There are a few kept as pets I suppose, not many. Plenty of them looked diseased. I imagine the aggressive ones are weeded out early.
The attitude toward dogs is entirely different than in the west.
It reminds me of the story of Dogen leaving out one arm while sleeping for the mosquitoes feed upon.
People are just people. There are all kinds of them.
Folk put on robes for all kinds of reasons.
Expecting them to manifest the attributes of their vows is as miss spent as expecting politicians to follow their own promises.
We expect monks to be different because..........?
We expect monks to be different because..........?
Well, based on this thread, we expect monks to be different because they are mindful in all their waking hours?
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
edited November 2014
Because they've not discouraged anybody from thinking and believing that their sincerity, stillness, balanced outlook and non-violence towards helpless creatures are anything but true.
I think mindfulness like all the other spokes of the 8FP is always preceded by an adjective to discern the difference between it's worldly development and the spiritual. Leave out that adjective and it can simply mean attention at the beck & call of anything.
@how said:
I think mindfulness like all the other spokes of the 8FP is always preceded by an adjective to discern the difference between it's worldly development and the spiritual. Leave out that adjective and it can simply mean attention at the beck & call of anything.
Even bitterness vinlyn.
If you think I'm bitter, @how, then you're holding a delusion. Disagreeing with something or someone does not equal bitterness.
Yes of course, disagreeing with something or someone does not in itself equal bitterness and I would be happy to have my perception of a new bitterness to your postings be a simple delusion. Just one less delusion to carry about.
Thanks
Howard
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@how said:
It reminds me of the story of Dogen leaving out one arm while sleeping for the mosquitoes feed upon.
People are just people. There are all kinds of them.
Folk put on robes for all kinds of reasons.
Expecting them to manifest the attributes of their vows is as miss spent as expecting politicians to follow their own promises.
We expect monks to be different because..........?
Ryokan was known to 'sun' his body lice for a time during the day on a scrap of silk, and then return them to their various homes on his body.
I give myself permission to go along with the relative truth that those holding positions of greater authority and responsibility ought to be accordingly held to higher behavioral standards than 'regular' folk. At the same time, I know better to be shocked when an inspired teacher is also a raging drunk and womanizer -- or at least I remind myself not to be .
@vinlyn said:
Well, based on this thread, we expect monks to be different because they are mindful in all their waking hours?
We expect monks to be different because we're spiritual materialists. We can't allow them to be whatever it is they are. We expect them to conform whatever our expectations are. It's kind of like fascism with an emphasis on conformity and wierd robes.
3
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
We also think in terms of them being in positions of authority as teachers ... and beyond, to a certain degree. Therefore, we can't help but look up to them, since they seem to be in possession of knowledge we want.
Half seriousness, is at leat half way to being serious. Some of the insights of this thread need to be revisited by many of the contributors, including me, but as I'm not a monk, and won't be in this lifetime I'm afraid to admit, I may have missed some of the thrust of the sutra! - I found some aspects very inspiring btw, despite reading much of the before...
@silver said:
We also think in terms of them being in positions of authority as teachers ... and beyond, to a certain degree. Therefore, we can't help but look up to them, since they seem to be in possession of knowledge we want.
@Cinorjer said:
I hope my post didn't give you that impression. I think mindfulness is a vital tool to our practice. I just caution people not to think that mindfulness is all there is to a Buddhist practice.
I agree. Mindfulness has become very popular with western Buddhists - at least until people realise that it requires effort and application to be mindful.
@Chaz said:
We expect monks to be different because we're spiritual materialists. We can't allow them to be whatever it is they are. We expect them to conform whatever our expectations are. It's kind of like fascism with an emphasis on conformity and wierd robes.
My experience, at least here in the UK, is that monks are usually more committed to practice than lay followers. I don't have high expectations of them though.
@SpinyNorman said:
I'm not sure where that claim has come from - has anyone actually argued this case? I sense another strawman.
It's their job to be working at it, surely. They are living on donations and handouts. It's the least that could be expected from them.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Possibly, but what people give them, and what they give back, are on totally different spectrums.
What is given to them, is necessary for practical and sound existence, bodily.
What is expected of them, is an intellectual and psychological instruction or example, and maybe, some of them are simply not in that league....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Nobody expects anybody to be mindful 24 hours a day but I wouldn't put my trust in a mentor that has less than compassionate habits.
Not only would I walk away from a dharma teacher that kicks dogs, I would be tempted to respond in kind on behalf of the dog.
@SpinyNorman said:
Obviously, but that can be an excuse for sitting on the fence.
Why?
Let me give an example. American politics at this time. To simplify it terribly, there's a general Republican views of things and there's a Democrat view of things. Neither is all right, or all wrong. And I would suggest to you that the wisest position is that one could vote for a Republican position or a Democrat position depending on the merits of a specific case. A good American doesn't have to be either Republican or Democrat, they could be Independent.
Some dogs need to be kicked.
I learned many years ago that I'm not up to it. I tried to kick a snarly old dog that made walking on the road difficult. It bit me before I even got close with my foot.
Mostly I give them a wide berth if they look mean.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
@Chaz said:
So you've never kicked a dog, or the like that you condone such .......... shit, I can't even think of a word for it.
Hubris. That's the word.
What an odd statement, lol. That doesn't make any sense, sorry.
It is hardly over confident to say I do not condone kicking stray dogs or that I have never or would ever kick a dog that isn't attacking myself or somebody else. It may make you feel better to say it, but it's silliness and it's beneath you.
It's also a strawman because I mentioned a teacher of the dharma that kicks dogs and not a lay-person that kicked a dog once (both are just examples) but that's not important.
It's easy to memorise the dharma but it is harder to live it. A proclaimed dharma teacher that habitually kicks dogs may be able to talk a good talk but that's only half the lesson.
@ourself said:
A proclaimed dharma teacher that habitually kicks dogs may be able to talk a good talk but that's only half the lesson.
I don't remember anyone saying anything about habitually kicking dogs.
But that might be the whole lesson - that clinging to preconcieved notions of what a teacher should be based on whatever knowledge you may have is simply a spiritually materialistic viewpoint. The Budhha's ascetic companions abandoned him because according to their traditions, their spiritually materialistic viewpoints, he broke the rules; he was now beneath them.
I also hope you are not referring to me. I just relayed that my teacher does not believe that mindfulness means unremitting attention, because she believes that awareness diffuses and focuses. So she is expressing her knowledge of the nature of mind rather than poo pooing mindfulness. So it is quite the opposite. My teacher said it is the quality of AWARENESS that tells us what is harmful and what is helpful. But it is a quality of AWARENESS (nature of the mind) rather than a fruit of super attention to senses without diffusing out. Indeed the diffusing allows something new to bubble up. As Einstein said "a problem cannot be solved by the same awareness that created it". Diffusing outward lets something new bloom.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself said:
Please... How many teachers did Sidhartha walk away from because they were not up to par?
And how many disciples did he dismiss because they were not worthy of the saffron robe?
The fact of donning a saffron robe does not automatically make us worthy of it.
Only in the Dhammapada do we find several references to this fact.
Please... How many teachers did Sidhartha walk away from because they were not up to par?
5, maybe. There were a few.
But not one, that I recall, had anything to do with kicking dogs or some other materialistic view of rule-breaking. My recollection of what I've been taught and read is because they couldn't teach him the path to the end of birth, old age, sickness and death.
@ourself said:
It is hardly over confident to say I do not condone kicking stray dogs or that I have never or would ever kick a dog that isn't attacking myself or somebody else.
I don't condone either. But the above also demonstrates a rationale demonstrating occaisions where kicking a dog would be acceptable. So, I guess the whole thing is just one big rationalization.
There's now an assumption that the monk in question was kicking a dog without good reason. All we really know is that he was alledged to have kicked a dog and we don't know why.
It may make you feel better to say it, but it's silliness and it's beneath you.
Nice of you to patronize say so.
It's also a strawman because I mentioned a teacher of the dharma that kicks dogs and not a lay-person that kicked a dog once (both are just examples) but that's not important.
It's also a massive rationalization, not to mention spiritually materialistic to hold a dharma teacher to a standard you won't apply to yourself. It is important.
It's easy to memorise the dharma but it is harder to live it.
So what's the rationalization for condemning someone who can't "live it" to your satisfaction?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If someone makes a habit of kicking dogs (even if it is the cultural norm and they are sick of them coming around) I somehow doubt they are able to properly teach about the cessation of dukkha.
I wouldn't even want a dharmic mentor that gets drunk, sleeps around, steals or lies. Some of the 8FP will be missing from their teachings (which are more than mere dharma "talks") in my opinion.
Your mileage may vary but that is not my concern.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
Sigh...
@Chaz said:
I don't condone either. But the above also demonstrates a rationale demonstrating occaisions where kicking a dog would be acceptable. So, I guess the whole thing is just one big rationalization.
There's now an assumption that the monk in question was kicking a dog without good reason. All we really know is that he was alledged to have kicked a dog and we don't know why.
I'm guessing you're the only one reading this that doesn't understand I was talking about the general attitude in some cultures about kicking stray dogs away from property. I wasn't the first to bring it up but I may have been the first to suppose one of these monks is also a teacher of monks.
So there you go, ok? The premise is set.
And yes, I think it is ok to stop one from harming another. I would try to stop a purse snatching so why wouldn't I try to stop a monk from kicking a dog? I would even try to stop a dog from attacking a person, monk or not. I don't see the relevance.
Nice of you to patronize say so.
I wasn't patronizing I was calling a spade a spade. I think you were projecting truth be told but we all have our moments.
It's also a massive rationalization, not to mention spiritually materialistic to hold a dharma teacher to a standard you won't apply to yourself. It is important.
It's also kind of redundant to seek out a teacher that has the same pitfalls as one is used to having or being around. By that logic, why seek a monk at all? Any regular Joe or Sally should suffice.
So what's the rationalization for condemning someone who can't "live it" to your satisfaction?
Condemning? You're hilarious. Just a tad dramatic, dontchya think?
I just wouldn't seek their wisdom and would go elsewhere. And no, if I saw them kicking a dog, I would not turn a blind eye.
Can't use the quote function on the cellphone...
Look, @Chaz, you do the googling yourself.
Only on the Dhammapada you have several verses mentioning what an unworthy monk looks like.
Add the Sutta Nipata, the Nikayas, and the Mahayana texts....
It would be so nice if we could only let ourselves off the hook more often...
Unfortunately for some, it doesn't work that way....
We have to do some merit once in a while...
Love you!
Comments
There is a reason why sati(mindfulness) is always paired with sampajanna(clear comprehension). Then you won't end up mindfully sweeping with your dong hanging out.
Metta
No worries, I only used .38% of my brain to respond to your conundrum.
So was this thread, so call it evens....
Being mindfull isn't and end in itself. It's a tool to help our practice and not the practice itself.
I think it's a bit more than a "tool". As the suttas say, mindfulness is the path to the Deathless ( ie enlightenment ).
It probably depends which Buddhist tradition we're discussing though.
Now I know that you just like to argue with me. I didn't write any such thing. I believe Chaz did, yet you attribute it to me. Your mindfulness is slipping!
I intended to reply to Chaz, the quoting didn't work properly.
Thas wy I tri two bee mindfull too proff reed my postals.
I consider mindfulness the same as awareness and I figure the more aware we are the more awake we are.
I could be mindful that I'm behaving badly and go on doing it but that awareness isn't tempered with all the other spokes of the wheel. In that, it is a little less mindful.
For me, meditation is really our manifestation of the whole of the 8FP, with mindfulness being no less essential than any of the other 7.
I agree, and it's puzzled me how in this thread some members have tried to downplay the importance of mindfulness, or don't think the effort is worthwhile.
I hope my post didn't give you that impression. I think mindfulness is a vital tool to our practice. I just caution people not to think that mindfulness is all there is to a Buddhist practice.
I agree. I haven't seen many posts here which have said that mindfulness is not important or worthwhile. Part of it's been a debate about whether it is something you should do constantly during all waking hours, or something you "turn on" when needed. Should one give it a rest for a while from time to time.
Again and again and again, life is not either/or.
...something about observing a Buddhist monk kicking a dog in the ribs.
Really? I'm aghast, seriously.
I guess the general attitude toward street dogs in Thailand can, in at least some cases, even stretch into the monastery.
I have seen similar attitudes towards stray dogs in Tibet, too, I think.... I can only suppose that perhaps it's a cultural thing.
It looked to me like the majority of dogs in Thailand are feral. Mostly living alongside people like rats do. There are a few kept as pets I suppose, not many. Plenty of them looked diseased. I imagine the aggressive ones are weeded out early.
The attitude toward dogs is entirely different than in the west.
It reminds me of the story of Dogen leaving out one arm while sleeping for the mosquitoes feed upon.
People are just people. There are all kinds of them.
Folk put on robes for all kinds of reasons.
Expecting them to manifest the attributes of their vows is as miss spent as expecting politicians to follow their own promises.
We expect monks to be different because..........?
Well, based on this thread, we expect monks to be different because they are mindful in all their waking hours?
Because they've not discouraged anybody from thinking and believing that their sincerity, stillness, balanced outlook and non-violence towards helpless creatures are anything but true.
I think mindfulness like all the other spokes of the 8FP is always preceded by an adjective to discern the difference between it's worldly development and the spiritual. Leave out that adjective and it can simply mean attention at the beck & call of anything.
Even bitterness vinlyn.
When it comes to Buddhist monks (whom you hold in 'high' regard) behaving "badly".....
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, Kill him!"
If you think I'm bitter, @how, then you're holding a delusion. Disagreeing with something or someone does not equal bitterness.
@vinlyn
Yes of course, disagreeing with something or someone does not in itself equal bitterness and I would be happy to have my perception of a new bitterness to your postings be a simple delusion. Just one less delusion to carry about.
Thanks
Howard
Ryokan was known to 'sun' his body lice for a time during the day on a scrap of silk, and then return them to their various homes on his body.
I give myself permission to go along with the relative truth that those holding positions of greater authority and responsibility ought to be accordingly held to higher behavioral standards than 'regular' folk. At the same time, I know better to be shocked when an inspired teacher is also a raging drunk and womanizer -- or at least I remind myself not to be
.
We expect monks to be different because we're spiritual materialists. We can't allow them to be whatever it is they are. We expect them to conform whatever our expectations are. It's kind of like fascism with an emphasis on conformity and wierd robes.
We also think in terms of them being in positions of authority as teachers ... and beyond, to a certain degree. Therefore, we can't help but look up to them, since they seem to be in possession of knowledge we want.
Half seriousness, is at leat half way to being serious. Some of the insights of this thread need to be revisited by many of the contributors, including me, but as I'm not a monk, and won't be in this lifetime I'm afraid to admit, I may have missed some of the thrust of the sutra! - I found some aspects very inspiring btw, despite reading much of the before...
I see minfulness being the ability to catch youself when you are not being mindful. At least a good start.
I agree. Mindfulness has become very popular with western Buddhists - at least until people realise that it requires effort and application to be mindful.
Again and again and again, life is not either/or.>
Obviously, but that can be an excuse for sitting on the fence.
My experience, at least here in the UK, is that monks are usually more committed to practice than lay followers. I don't have high expectations of them though.
Well, based on this thread, we expect monks to be different because they are mindful in all their waking hours.
I'm not sure where that claim has come from - has anyone actually argued this case? I sense another strawman.
It's their job to be working at it, surely. They are living on donations and handouts. It's the least that could be expected from them.
Possibly, but what people give them, and what they give back, are on totally different spectrums.
What is given to them, is necessary for practical and sound existence, bodily.
What is expected of them, is an intellectual and psychological instruction or example, and maybe, some of them are simply not in that league....
Not only would I walk away from a dharma teacher that kicks dogs, I would be tempted to respond in kind on behalf of the dog.
Why?
Let me give an example. American politics at this time. To simplify it terribly, there's a general Republican views of things and there's a Democrat view of things. Neither is all right, or all wrong. And I would suggest to you that the wisest position is that one could vote for a Republican position or a Democrat position depending on the merits of a specific case. A good American doesn't have to be either Republican or Democrat, they could be Independent.
So you've never kicked a dog, or the like that you condone such .......... shit, I can't even think of a word for it.
Hubris. That's the word.
Some dogs need to be kicked.
I learned many years ago that I'm not up to it. I tried to kick a snarly old dog that made walking on the road difficult. It bit me before I even got close with my foot.
Mostly I give them a wide berth if they look mean.
What an odd statement, lol. That doesn't make any sense, sorry.
It is hardly over confident to say I do not condone kicking stray dogs or that I have never or would ever kick a dog that isn't attacking myself or somebody else. It may make you feel better to say it, but it's silliness and it's beneath you.
It's also a strawman because I mentioned a teacher of the dharma that kicks dogs and not a lay-person that kicked a dog once (both are just examples) but that's not important.
It's easy to memorise the dharma but it is harder to live it. A proclaimed dharma teacher that habitually kicks dogs may be able to talk a good talk but that's only half the lesson.
I don't remember anyone saying anything about habitually kicking dogs.
But that might be the whole lesson - that clinging to preconcieved notions of what a teacher should be based on whatever knowledge you may have is simply a spiritually materialistic viewpoint. The Budhha's ascetic companions abandoned him because according to their traditions, their spiritually materialistic viewpoints, he broke the rules; he was now beneath them.
Guess they got that wrong, eh?
I also hope you are not referring to me. I just relayed that my teacher does not believe that mindfulness means unremitting attention, because she believes that awareness diffuses and focuses. So she is expressing her knowledge of the nature of mind rather than poo pooing mindfulness. So it is quite the opposite. My teacher said it is the quality of AWARENESS that tells us what is harmful and what is helpful. But it is a quality of AWARENESS (nature of the mind) rather than a fruit of super attention to senses without diffusing out. Indeed the diffusing allows something new to bubble up. As Einstein said "a problem cannot be solved by the same awareness that created it". Diffusing outward lets something new bloom.
Please... How many teachers did Sidhartha walk away from because they were not up to par?
And how many disciples did he dismiss because they were not worthy of the saffron robe?
The fact of donning a saffron robe does not automatically make us worthy of it.
Only in the Dhammapada do we find several references to this fact.
5, maybe. There were a few.
But not one, that I recall, had anything to do with kicking dogs or some other materialistic view of rule-breaking. My recollection of what I've been taught and read is because they couldn't teach him the path to the end of birth, old age, sickness and death.
A far cry from moral tirpitude.
Good question. How many and why? What made them "unworthy"?
I don't condone either. But the above also demonstrates a rationale demonstrating occaisions where kicking a dog would be acceptable. So, I guess the whole thing is just one big rationalization.
There's now an assumption that the monk in question was kicking a dog without good reason. All we really know is that he was alledged to have kicked a dog and we don't know why.
Nice of you to patronize say so.
It's also a massive rationalization, not to mention spiritually materialistic to hold a dharma teacher to a standard you won't apply to yourself. It is important.
So what's the rationalization for condemning someone who can't "live it" to your satisfaction?
If someone makes a habit of kicking dogs (even if it is the cultural norm and they are sick of them coming around) I somehow doubt they are able to properly teach about the cessation of dukkha.
I wouldn't even want a dharmic mentor that gets drunk, sleeps around, steals or lies. Some of the 8FP will be missing from their teachings (which are more than mere dharma "talks") in my opinion.
Your mileage may vary but that is not my concern.
Sigh...
I'm guessing you're the only one reading this that doesn't understand I was talking about the general attitude in some cultures about kicking stray dogs away from property. I wasn't the first to bring it up but I may have been the first to suppose one of these monks is also a teacher of monks.
So there you go, ok? The premise is set.
And yes, I think it is ok to stop one from harming another. I would try to stop a purse snatching so why wouldn't I try to stop a monk from kicking a dog? I would even try to stop a dog from attacking a person, monk or not. I don't see the relevance.
I wasn't patronizing I was calling a spade a spade. I think you were projecting truth be told but we all have our moments.
It's also kind of redundant to seek out a teacher that has the same pitfalls as one is used to having or being around. By that logic, why seek a monk at all? Any regular Joe or Sally should suffice.
Condemning? You're hilarious. Just a tad dramatic, dontchya think?
I just wouldn't seek their wisdom and would go elsewhere. And no, if I saw them kicking a dog, I would not turn a blind eye.
Look, @Chaz, you do the googling yourself.
Only on the Dhammapada you have several verses mentioning what an unworthy monk looks like.
Add the Sutta Nipata, the Nikayas, and the Mahayana texts....
It would be so nice if we could only let ourselves off the hook more often...
Unfortunately for some, it doesn't work that way....
We have to do some merit once in a while...
Love you!