Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It applies pretty much to every person who does not understand Dhamma. Imagine the whole world does not understand the concept of math yet they are using it without awareness of being used, some people will give the right answer, but most people will write random numbers and get the wrong outcomes of their calculations.
“yogis also realized the detrimental effects of sensory pleasures and developed Jhāna and Samāpatti to be reborn in the Brahma realms. However, they could not eliminate the Saṁyojana (fetters). Why were they unable to attain the wisdom needed to break these bonds?”
The answer is pretty much in the question – because they were unaware of Dhamma. Their yogic practice is the same as that of someone trying to get rich or do better in the material world for self-fulfillment. What I mean here the same ignorance of the true nature of the world is used for spiritual means.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Again I will keep correcting idealistic theories that have no place in Dhamma. The difference between real-life experience and theories is clear here.
“as long as you have not renounced the lay life, you are not in a good position to criticize them” – This is a bad take, is the same idea in clergy and churches, you criticize people or whoever you want no matter their position and status (ask questions, doubt, criticize and seek holes to make Dhamma and people better as long as you do not do it with bad/wrong intentions or harmful ways). If you say that people can not do it, we will have the same thing that in church when priests can do anything and people can say nothing about it.
“If one is really serious about attaining Nibbāna as quickly as possible one should take the robe immediately” – Another delusion is that people who have the first strong spike of positive experiences can not suddenly change their life, get the robe, and become monks – they will become depressed once that first positive experience vanishes and they start chasing it again without realizing the reason behind it (which can be done while being lay), so suggesting people that they should give up everything and leave everything behind to pursue is delusional and idealistic which will harm a person in the process which will harm their practice. For most modern people the best option is to have a comfortable place to practice and study Dhamma, work that can sustain the means for it and without overloading. There was a good book about “free time”, I forgot the name of it but “free time” in ancient and medieval times was a luxury for only those with the highest social standing, every other person worked early to night without much breaks or time – every day that why you became a monk, to have time to practice Dhamma. Now people can manage time on their own.
The rest I will not comment on simply as it’s clear to me that you are “Pro-Dhamma” but not knowledgable or experienced in life/practice/Dhamma to become a person who can say something about it besides slogans. I do not mean it in a bad way, it will be a good example for yourself and others to reflect if one is just “pro-Dhamma” or one following the Path of understanding, experience, and rationale of Dhamma in their life.
Downplaying people on forums “you are just people writing on an internet forum” is really bad too. Lal is just a “person writing a blog on the internet” but the impact he had with the site is huge and brings light to real Dhamma for many people. I strongly suggest self-reflection before writing those things and see if there is any basis in those “arguments”
This also is out of context. Are you saying monks at Jethavaranama can transport people into deva worlds to show him things, and they correlate their cravings with Dhamma? Of course not. Every modern Sangha has flaws, positives, and negatives because they are not conducted with living Buddha or (probably) living Arahant. We need to be critical of every one of them and learn what works.
Using examples of monks from suttas like that and comparing it to modern monks is untruthful. I’m not trying to take away anything from the real extent of any Sangha work but this is clearly sugarcoating and sugarcoating is always harmful in the long term. Being enamored with anything leads to blindness. You also using other stories of monks that have much deeper meaning in their Path – they are not applicable for what we have now and the level of people we have. Unless somebody comes and claims Arahantship – you need to scale down your expectations.
Real Dhamma is on the comeback for sure, but it will take either like 10-20 years more or we will need to wait for the next Buddha to have Arahants again. (which will be a sign that all teachings are gone anyway)
What we need is monks (who see the truth) to challenge people and “wake up desire” to know what is real, and true in existential matter beyond religions. Not just sugarcoating them into accepting that Dhamma is something true using their religion as a bridge and trying to say it is the same thing that Buddha did which is a misunderstanding.
Teaching Dhamma must be done in a pure way with logic, facts, truths, heart, and discipline. It includes seeing things as they are and disregarding what is not true. Doing too much will just harm people in the long term and harm Dhamma because it leaves a bad/wrong impression and when a person comes to the point of “getting something” (and they will not) they will lose faith because they started on the wrong foot, views and expectations towards Dhamma.
To short it up for your comfort Yash
– “No self” through Nibbana should be positive, blissful, and happy (which is different from “no self” from other religions and philosophies or nihilism) No self in Dhamma is based on Anatta is pointless to seek “sense/self fulfillment” in this world, it’s not related to non-existence/nihilism but to the whole process of Paticca Samupadda – when “self” does not get stimulus from the wrong views it does not cease to exist in terms of existence but in terms of ignorance. It’s hard to convey this idea but I hope you will get the difference.
– No self through delusional ideas and thoughts/imagination will be awful as it disagrees with ignorance that people have. It will create existential dread, anxiety, and other bad stuff simply because you are doing the wrong practice, the wrong way with the wrong views.
As long as you see positives as positives and negatives as negatives your mind will find balance.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“Venerable Arahant Culapanthaka became an arahant with the help of a cloth. This does not mean that the rag is the truth.“
Well, that is a bit of a stretch of argument, same with Pothila – I think you using those arguments in the wrong way. Still, they are irrelevant to the actual situation as their situation and story are different, by stretch I mean you trying to make the argument as you take two different things and try to make them look like they are the same while they are whole other things and positions are not relatable to what you are saying. Those Bhikkus were in a very unique scenarios that had nothing to do with what you trying to convey through those arguments.
Trying to buy people to “your side” and sugarcoat things will not be good in the long run as it creates false expectations in the long run. If people care about what is true it will not matter what they are in the context of religious manner, spiritual, or whatever. If a person does not have the qualities to become a “real” Buddhist you do not convince anyone to do so. Dhamma is not really “missionary” but I understand the position of Bhikkus in the modern day, they need to do “something” to bring people to their place which is not bad – especially in the case if promoting real things.
- All religions outside Dhamma are limited or just false. Some religions come from spiritual experiences plus ignorance on top of it, some are just made to use people’s ignorance to control and benefit themselves. Those two things often co-exist as clergy and mysticism/mystics in most religions (via western categories).
- Saying that you can attain Nibbana through the bible or use examples from the bible is misleading but I think they want to sugarcoat and appeal to people outside Buddha Dhamma. In a position when you need to survive as a monastery based on other people’s good will you may do things like that. If real Dhamma were recognized as something of substance like science they could just have grants for their spiritual research but that’s a different topic.
- From what I see taryal just asking questions and has a very inquiring nature – I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as you do not get into heavy statements. It’s very good to be skeptical, logical, rational, and ask questions as long as one looks for what is true in terms of existential things. Calling people idiots even if they are religious idiots it’s not a perfect solution, is not close to a solution. If they can’t understand their ignorance you do not do anything with them simple some people are incapable of getting of their addictions, religions, desires, or whatever. They may in the future, and they may in the next life but it’s not up to us to be in a position of calling people idiots even if they are simple it does not bring outcomes you would want to get from calling people that. If you don’t follow cause and effect logic – it makes no sense to so.
- The moral life of Buddhist and religious persons is different, while Buddha praised old Vedas (because they come from Buddha teachings anyway) moral life of someone who practices Dhamma comes from understanding rather than just ruleset. It is in line with understanding and whole teaching, while morality of religions is based on fairy tales.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If you experience any fear, anxiety, etc. in your meditation – it means you doing things wrong. What you experienced is not jhana but entry-level of Nibbana or mind getting aligned with Dhamma. Jhana is a very specific state of mind with bliss beyond any physical means. After getting on the proper “way” you started to focus on “me” and stuff like this which probably mixed with wrong views “of no me” and delusion. This is a very dangerous game with your mind. Focus on the core teachings of Dhamma and keep that brightness and lightness often. If you start thinking stupid things like “no me” or “no self” it will create huge problems and mental instability. If you think for example of “money” or “yourself as someone important” or sense pleasure images your body will respond, if you think of “no self” your body and mind will start to crash out as you would bring the wrong “code” to the computer.
If anyone feels anything negative while practicing Dhamma – you are not practicing Dhamma but your delusion. Stick to the teachings, going left or right side will have wrong consequences for your mind.
Buddha Dhamma is like science for “medieval” people. We may advance in terms of technology, understanding of material works etc. (which are good things) but the existential crisis is more than ever. Buddha Dhamma is science that have insight into it and explains it so ideally science and Dhamma would cover all we need physically and mentally.
Advaita got nothing to do with Dhamma, I was studying it before Buddhism and if you compare it to Dhamma it becomes like just anothe misinterpratation of reality. Like most of philosophy is based on “romantic” views which will appeal to those with “idealist” mindset but in reality is just sense pleasure for the mind of intellectualist-hobbyist. (especially in the West)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Changing genders becomes like “getting a tattoo” for teens. It’s just a harmful trend, you can undo a tattoo but can’t undo sex-change. People who have real identity problems and people who do it as a form of “tattoo” neither benefit from this “trend”.
1 user thanked author for this post.
There is nothing in the suttas that is “for” or “against” it if you talking about the orientation (besides vinaya rules for monks). “LGBT” as a social movement I would say do not bring that into Dhamma because making everything “LGBT” (like corporations do for money ie. greed) would cause more harm and ignorance just for the sake of “image”.
If you talking about people’s orientation my take is that the sense of pleasure for anything is the same inherently, if you carve from women it is no difference if you carve for the man same way whether you are heterosexual or homosexual or whatever in between it’s the same thing inherently. The other side is whatever societal impact it has, while often in Dhamma “things do not matter” in the sense that if you lust for black, pink, red or blue, or whatever color the mechanism behind is the same as the “outside” or societal structure may be different as it’s a lot of people with a variety of ignorance, gathi so this is where those things matter. Dhamma at its core has principles not related to this world, LGBT is related to this world and society so they do not work together on the same level.
Also, precepts are universal for every living being (those being spoken by Buddha) so it does not matter what kind of orientation you are but what person you are or what you trying to become, or unbecome in terms of Dhamma.
2 users thanked author for this post.
The “intention” of aborting a human embryo in an unwanted pregnancy would be to protect the mother’s life & well-being, AND the baby from future suffering. So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother.
I think this is a really bad argument, if you kill something for the comfort or sense of pleasure it’s even worse javana citta. Your logic would apply in the sense that I have no problem killing anyone because somebody is bothering me and killing that person will make me feel go away isn’t it the worst kamma to make?
This is why we need to verify our logic from a lot of angles especially if it is infected with mundane ignorance.
I understand there are extreme situations like “the child will be dead anyway so let’s save the mother” as the best choice in a given situation, but Dhamma perspective is different from than mundane perspective and logic that often falls in the big picture of the world.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“When one is infected with parasites, it’d be advised to take medicine to kill them, too”—the value of worms is much less in karmic terms, and being human is extremely rare, the same with pets. As Buddha taught us, “It’s not the way we like it.” You can not even out everything because you want something to be according to your logic. You are trying to bend it with tunnel vision of ignorance. Buddha explained how it is in the big picture, if you see the big picture it’s clear that it is like that.
You put extreme examples but it does not take away that the cell is a living being, just because it does not look like that to you it does not mean it is not. If you see a small sapling of the tree, it is still a tree even if it has no branches or it does not look like it.
In extreme examples, those are very unfortunate for people who experience them and we understand that but emotionally charged arguments will not make truth non-truth. If people value mundane life they will abort or make any sacrifices on all levels of life for the sake of an illusionary sense of pleasure. If you are put in a bad situation you either make it worse for the future or somehow manage it, normal people have no option of Dhamma so obviously they generate more kamma with wrongdoings.
Your arguments are just questions of value. Puthujjana will always choose the option of a sense of pleasure under false views to the extreme version of sacrificing everything for the outcome of comfort and not having problems. Ariya will always value Nibbana even if it costs him his life because in the long term, you will be free permanently from sansara.
I think Vinaya is very good for measuring potential wrongdoings and their weight even if you are not a monk.
People need to understand that society and the way people act are based on distorted sanna so obviously, there will be shortcomings one way or another even if we have a pretty developed society in terms of material-objective truths that help up advance in terms of science and technology, but without Dhamma it can turn wrong way easily.
Having someone with an understanding of Dhamma + strong 4th jhana you could verify most things like that by yourself and experience of it.
