A spiritual person is...

[luecy7]

lol, no. The pernacious one was the one who had the wrong grasp of the snake (or the monastic code.) He argued against the monastic code (probably regarding celebacy.) Since that sort of behavior the monk was advocating would lead to suffering, his wrong grasp of the teachings of the ending of sufferring (snake,) it would "turn back and bite him," and he would suffer.

So if I were to chastise you before your closest friends for an understanding that you had, because you openly and honestly revealed it, and I call you the foolish one for having the understanding and for revealing it, because it was bad press for me, then what behavior am I calling foolish, and what behavior am I calling wise? Even if your view is the so-called pernicious view, you have faith in others by providing control over yourself to others, as you reveal it. Though I may disagree with the view, is it honest of me to challenge your view by characterizing you as foolish for having the view? You are not the view, as you believe you are not your mental formation. I might challenge you for teaching the view that I view is wrong, but who really gets to determine what is wise, and unwise, foolish or not? If you don't see the value in my view, or the foolishness in yours, I have to accept that from your viewpoint: you may be wise, and I may be foolish. Whether you see wisdom or foolishness in my words... it is not my doing.

The blessed one does reveal his belief to his students, having faith in the others. However, he reveals himself to be selfish, concerned with the characterization of himself and his teaching. Meanwhile, he is blazingly characterizing the others as foolish and wise. This is why I say that he is behaving as a hypocrite. Why does he care so much about the pernicious view that is truly NOT his? Just trying to help his fellow monks? He is fighting the gossip over his own mental formation, or the lack thereof. The mental work that it takes for him to review his actions, is apparently not there. It would be a double standard for me to characterize your teaching, but to not accept you to characterize mine.

If I were to say: IF you love me, and have faith in me, then you will go to heaven: am I being non-selfish? Is it necessary for you to love me, and have faith in me, for you to go to heaven? Am I demonstrating that I am clear of sense-desire, as I threaten-demand you to love me, and have faith in me? Do I really have the knowledge, or the right, to say that? I believe this is partly a translation error, but as I read it the selfishness is still very clear because the word 'ME' was not the translation error. The blessed one is NOT saying: love this wisdom, and trust in this teaching. He is NOT saying: love each other and have faith in each other. He is saying: do something with ME: love ME, and have faith in ME, and come seek ME for understanding because I am wise, and then you get to go to heaven. Who is ME? Would that be his mind-body aggregate that is not his, but yet he wants it to be loved, and to have the faith of others in it? He says to disown your mind-body, and clear your mind of these things, except for some form of love and faith in that blessed one. The ownership of wisdom is like the ownership of foolishness: if the one is not his, then neither was the other.

I would say that it is good for you if you are loving, and having faith in others, even the one that is demanding it. Whether he is a fool, or wise, it is still valuable to hear him. But, who would I be to say that you will be in heaven by loving me, and having faith in me? Who does the blessed one need to love, and to have faith in, to go to heaven himself... love in himself, and faith in himself?

I tell you the truth: I think Arittha was the closest one with approval in the eyes of God. Why do I say this? The so-called blessed one is in hiding. As he says: by clearing his mind, the gods with Indra, the gods with Brahma, and the gods with the Lord of Creatures, searching will not find on what his consciousness is based. He is in hiding, hiding himself from God. Does a person have any relationship with God, as he goes into hiding?

 

[seattlegal]

So if I were to chastise you before your closest friends for an understanding that you had, because you openly and honestly revealed it, and I call you the foolish one for having the understanding and for revealing it, because it was bad press for me, then what behavior am I calling foolish, and what behavior am I calling wise? Even if your view is the so-called pernicious view, you have faith in others by providing control over yourself to others, as you reveal it. Though I may disagree with the view, is it honest of me to challenge your view by characterizing you as foolish for having the view? You are not the view, as you believe you are not your mental formation. I might challenge you for teaching the view that I view is wrong, but who really gets to determine what is wise, and unwise, foolish or not? If you don't see the value in my view, or the foolishness in yours, I have to accept that from your viewpoint: you may be wise, and I may be foolish. Whether you see wisdom or foolishness in my words... it is not my doing.

Hey, I'm all for questioning authority with skepticism.

The blessed one does reveal his belief to his students, having faith in the others. However, he reveals himself to be selfish, concerned with the characterization of himself and his teaching. Meanwhile, he is blazingly characterizing the others as foolish and wise. This is why I say that he is behaving as a hypocrite. Why does he care so much about the pernicious view that is truly NOT his? Just trying to help his fellow monks? He is fighting the gossip over his own mental formation, or the lack thereof. The mental work that it takes for him to review his actions, is apparently not there. It would be a double standard for me to characterize your teaching, but to not accept you to characterize mine.

It could also be that he was concerned with his teaching being misrepresented.

If I were to say: IF you love me, and have faith in me, then you will go to heaven: am I being non-selfish? Is it necessary for you to love me, and have faith in me, for you to go to heaven? Am I demonstrating that I am clear of sense-desire, as I threaten-demand you to love me, and have faith in me? Do I really have the knowledge, or the right, to say that? I believe this is partly a translation error, but as I read it the selfishness is still very clear because the word 'ME' was not the translation error. The blessed one is NOT saying: love this wisdom, and trust in this teaching. He is NOT saying: love each other and have faith in each other. He is saying: do something with ME: love ME, and have faith in ME, and come seek ME for understanding because I am wise, and then you get to go to heaven. Who is ME? Would that be his mind-body aggregate that is not his, but yet he wants it to be loved, and to have the faith of others in it? He says to disown your mind-body, and clear your mind of these things, except for some form of love and faith in that blessed one. The ownership of wisdom is like the ownership of foolishness: if the one is not his, then neither was the other.

Then again, the teachings were also likened to a raft that was not to be clung to after using it to pass to the other side.

I would say that it is good for you if you are loving, and having faith in others, even the one that is demanding it. Whether he is a fool, or wise, it is still valuable to hear him. But, who would I be to say that you will be in heaven by loving me, and having faith in me? Who does the blessed one need to love, and to have faith in, to go to heaven himself... love in himself, and faith in himself?

I tell you the truth: I think Arittha was the closest one with approval in the eyes of God. Why do I say this? The so-called blessed one is in hiding. As he says: by clearing his mind, the gods with Indra, the gods with Brahma, and the gods with the Lord of Creatures, searching will not find on what his consciousness is based. He is in hiding, hiding himself from God. Does a person have any relationship with God, as he goes into hiding?

Hmm, I would say consciously or unconsciously hiding from someone would constitute relationship behavior, imo, as would conscious indifference. As for unconscious indifference, I cannot say.

 

[luecy7]

Hey, I'm all for questioning authority with skepticism.

Definitely not foolish from my viewpoint. Arittha was wise there.

It could also be that he was concerned with his teaching being misrepresented.

Clearly, even though it was not his. See? The teaching became his. Self-ish.

Then again, the teachings were also likened to a raft that was not to be clung to after using it to pass to the other side.

Yet that teacher is verbally clinging to that raft, and defending his actions. Love me, have faith in me, like a raft to make it to heaven.

Hmm, I would say consciously or unconsciously hiding from someone would constitute relationship behavior, imo, as would conscious indifference. As for unconscious indifference, I cannot say.

Right... the teacher is unconscious of his behavior; naturally, since that is the teaching: don't be conscious. Give up that impermanence, that mindfulness, that consciousness. Don't be responsible for being selfish, be unconscious of it. I guess you have a point: murder would be a clear indifference, and a relationship behavior. What better than an unconscious, non-responsible, murderer? Somehow I don't think it hurts God, or anyone else, when someone hides from them.

 

[seattlegal]

Clearly, even though it was not his. See? The teaching became his. Self-ish.

LOL, well then whose teaching was it to begin with?

Yet that teacher is verbally clinging to that raft, and defending his actions. Love me, have faith in me, like a raft to make it to heaven.

Would you defend your actions of building a raft to help people? If someone then punched holes in that raft and then attempted to use it, would you not warn them?

Right... the teacher is unconscious of his behavior; naturally, since that is the teaching: don't be conscious. Give up that impermanence, that mindfulness, that consciousness. Don't be responsible for being selfish, be unconscious of it. I guess you have a point: murder would be a clear indifference, and a relationship behavior. What better than an unconscious, non-responsible, murderer? Somehow I don't think it hurts God, or anyone else, when someone hides from them.

You are the one accusing of hiding. I commented that hiding would constitute relationship behavior. Nice strawman.

 

[luecy7]

LOL, well then whose teaching was it to begin with?

Good question. If you are teaching it, then you are the teacher of it. Perhaps the Buddha will agree with me that the blessed one in that suttra, is not the Buddha.

Would you defend your actions of building a raft to help people? If someone then punched holes in that raft and then attempted to use it, would you not warn them?

Attached to the raft? Nobody punched holes in any raft, but if a person can't see the holes, then I guess he/she will learn.

You are the one accusing of hiding. I commented that hiding would constitute relationship behavior. Nice strawman.

Strawman? I agreed with you. You simply chose a different definition for the term, 'relationship', than what I have been using. Two people at war do have a relationship, by your definition, and they do commonly hide from each other.

 

[Lunitik]

The Vinaya Pitaka was the framework for the Sangha that the Buddha constructed as required. It is these "rules" that maintained harmony.

The Buddha's teaching was concerned only with dukkha (sometimes transliterated as suffering; not the best word I think) and its cessation.

The desire to realise liberation from dukkha (for oneself and all sentient beings) may be seen as the beginning of the practice - the arising of bodhicitta.

When Buddha first began teaching, there were no rules at all - this is because the initial disciples were wise enough to manage themselves. As more people started coming to the Buddha that were not rightly deciphering his message, they began disciplining them. Never were these solid rules during Buddhas life, however, only after his death did Upali recite them all.

As has already been discussed, Satori could almost be regarded as requiring renunciation of these rules as well - it is not possible to reach this attainment while still maintaining differences such as right or wrong.

 

[Lunitik]

Samadhi is a state of hiding in darkness, like a snake in the bushes that can see and experience, but that remains motionless and thus cannot be seen. Why do you call it good to hide in darkness? For personal gain?

I did not call it good or bad, I only said this is what the enlightened ones have attained. I am not sure how you have gained this definition for Samadhi however, quite a strange definition...

 

[Lunitik]

Clearly, even though it was not his. See? The teaching became his. Self-ish.

Yet that teacher is verbally clinging to that raft, and defending his actions. Love me, have faith in me, like a raft to make it to heaven.

Right... the teacher is unconscious of his behavior; naturally, since that is the teaching: don't be conscious. Give up that impermanence, that mindfulness, that consciousness. Don't be responsible for being selfish, be unconscious of it. I guess you have a point: murder would be a clear indifference, and a relationship behavior. What better than an unconscious, non-responsible, murderer? Somehow I don't think it hurts God, or anyone else, when someone hides from them.

The teachings were never committed to text by Buddha, Ananda is responsible for reciting the teachings after Buddha's death, and thus his veneration for Buddha shines through as one of the most devoted disciples.

 

[seattlegal]

As has already been discussed, Satori could almost be regarded as requiring renunciation of these rules as well - it is not possible to reach this attainment while still maintaining differences such as right or wrong.

Actually, you can if you do not disable the 7th consciousness altogether, imo. Just refute the notion of self, not judgement. {Yeah, it can be dangerous}

"Therefore it is said, 'In representing the Dao of Heaven, one uses the terms Yin and Yang, and in representing the Dao of Earth, one uses the terms Soft and Hard, while in representing the Dao of Man, one uses the terms Love and Righteousness.'"
--Zhou Dunyi, Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate, referencing the Ten Wings of the I Ching​

 

[seattlegal]

As has already been discussed, Satori could almost be regarded as requiring renunciation of these rules as well - it is not possible to reach this attainment while still maintaining differences such as right or wrong.

Umm, sticky point. If you cannot maintain the difference between right and wrong, some guidelines would be in order, no?

 

[seattlegal]

Umm, sticky point. If you cannot maintain the difference between right and wrong, some guidelines would be in order, no?

Christians call the necessary guidelines "The Law of Freedom," i.e. "Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you, (and its variants)" and "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[Snoopy]

Never were these solid rules during Buddhas life

Introduction to the Patimokkha Rules

"The Buddha, in laying down each rule, gave ten reasons for doing so: for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline."

...

"The system of penalties the Buddha worked out for the rules is based on two principles. The first is that the training aims primarily at the development of the mind. Thus the factors of intention and perception often determine whether or not a particular action is an infringement of a rule. For instance, killing an animal accidentally is, in terms of the mind of the agent, very different from killing it purposefully, and does not count as an infringement of the rule against killing."

Personally, I would call these "solid" rules that he set out during his lifetime. As with all the Buddha's teaching, it was given within an oral tradition and only committed to hard copy (palm leaves) long after his death.

 

[Lunitik]

Umm, sticky point. If you cannot maintain the difference between right and wrong, some guidelines would be in order, no?

I don't see why they would be, since the very nature of Satori would mean your every action is dictated by compassion. You see everything as one, thus you would see any wrong action as something done against yourself in essence. It is true that many people consciously harm themselves, but I doubt this is possible in such a state.

 

[Lunitik]

Introduction to the Patimokkha Rules

"The Buddha, in laying down each rule, gave ten reasons for doing so: for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline."

...

"The system of penalties the Buddha worked out for the rules is based on two principles. The first is that the training aims primarily at the development of the mind. Thus the factors of intention and perception often determine whether or not a particular action is an infringement of a rule. For instance, killing an animal accidentally is, in terms of the mind of the agent, very different from killing it purposefully, and does not count as an infringement of the rule against killing."

Personally, I would call these "solid" rules that he set out during his lifetime. As with all the Buddha's teaching, it was given within an oral tradition and only committed to hard copy (palm leaves) long after his death.

This begs the question of whether Buddha actually intended these rules, or whether they were established through attempts to control the followers. Every religion has been founded by a man who was considered a rebel in his own time, and in every case, people attempt to organize the rebellion and unavoidably remove its very nature. These forms of control are typical in religions, people always want to gain power for themselves once the previous master is gone.

It is quite depressing to me, but is also why I consider it erroneous to commit to any organized religion. The enlightened ones of the past should serve only as guides, handing over individuality to follow such rebellious people seems insane to me.

 

[luecy7]

It is possible to not do any wrong, and yet fail to do any good either. It is possible to have no wrongful thoughts, and yet fail to have any good thoughts either.

What once seemed impermanent, now seems potentially permanent. What once seemed permanent, now seems subject to change.

 

[Snoopy]

This begs the question of whether Buddha actually intended these rules.

How could someone not INTEND rules that they themselves created?

 

[Lunitik]

It is possible to not do any wrong, and yet fail to do any good either. It is possible to have no wrongful thoughts, and yet fail to have any good thoughts either.

What once seemed impermanent, now seems potentially permanent. What once seemed permanent, now seems subject to change.

That's just it, an enlightened person does not see any distinction at all if you review their words. There is always a overall sense of balance and bringing you towards a central point where neither truly exists, it is most often referred to as "Ultimate Truth". It is difficult to understand because few ever reach such heights during a given time period, and those that do tend to avoid attention.

When your every action is motivated purely by love, a pure love which is often called light, how can you do wrong? Yet it is not a consideration of right and wrong, it is the only thing they could possibly have done in that situation. To someone that differentiates, their action could even seem harsh or unjust, but it is always rightly guided and thus flawless. There have been occasions where such beings have been slandered and even killed in horrific ways for their deeds and advice to those around them. There is such an example of a Sufi having legs and arms cut off, eyes gauged out, merely for the assertion that they are God. Each human is the seed of God, and God is our flowering - this is a common understanding among mystics. Buddhists do not believe in God, and yet the interconnectedness which is the culminating realization is exactly what all mystics call God.

 

[Lunitik]

How could someone not INTEND rules that they themselves created?

Umm, as seattlegal already pointed out earlier in the thread, they certainly are not intended for those that understand his message - ie, those that have reached the other shore. Of course, most people studying a particular organized faith always wish to conform in some way to it, they want to be told what this new path entails and so a particular path is expressed. In reality the path is irrelevant, it is only the destination that is relevant at all.

My family is mostly Catholic, and so I will use them as an example here. Throughout a Catholics life, they are given particular stepping stones called sacraments. Are any of these truly meaningful? I don't think so, they merely provide the appearance of achievement. All faiths use similar tactics to keep people from disengaging despite nothing changing, Buddhism is the only faith I know of that actually teaches you to step away once you have attained the goal. Most of these rules and rituals are entirely meaningless and pointless, but if you tried to tell people "listen, just meditate and find your core, that's it", most people will look elsewhere because they don't know what it means - they want a clearly defined structure, which is humorous because enlightenment is the attainment of utter freedom. Sort of shows just how far those entering a given faith truly are from where they hope to arrive.

 

[seattlegal]

Umm, as seattlegal already pointed out earlier in the thread, they certainly are not intended for those that understand his message - ie, those that have reached the other shore. Of course, most people studying a particular organized faith always wish to conform in some way to it, they want to be told what this new path entails and so a particular path is expressed. In reality the path is irrelevant, it is only the destination that is relevant at all.

My family is mostly Catholic, and so I will use them as an example here. Throughout a Catholics life, they are given particular stepping stones called sacraments. Are any of these truly meaningful? I don't think so, they merely provide the appearance of achievement. All faiths use similar tactics to keep people from disengaging despite nothing changing, Buddhism is the only faith I know of that actually teaches you to step away once you have attained the goal. Most of these rules and rituals are entirely meaningless and pointless, but if you tried to tell people "listen, just meditate and find your core, that's it", most people will look elsewhere because they don't know what it means - they want a clearly defined structure, which is humorous because enlightenment is the attainment of utter freedom. Sort of shows just how far those entering a given faith truly are from where they hope to arrive.

You do understand the dangers of when someone mistakes Makyo for Satori, no? Guidelines are certainly in order here!
(see Luke 4, Matt 4)

 

[Snoopy]

@Lunatik

The Buddha made rules that he intended his followers to abide by, on sufferance of punishment for transgressions.