ជជែកគ្នារឿងឆេងម៉េង នៅកន្លែងការងារ បណ្តើរចុចៗ ចូលទៅឡូតចឹងទៅ😌
Please feel welcome to join the transcription project of the Tipitaka translation in khmer, and share one of your favorite Sutta or more. Simply 
![[logo dhammatalks.org]](https://www.dhammatalks.org/images/dto_logo_160.png){kind=logo}
![[pic 30]](Themes/sangham/images/german-utf8/new.gif)
- ics - file Uposatha/Sila-days 2024/2025 2568 ថ្ងៃ ឧបោសថ ២០២៤/២០២៥ ២៥៦៨ [3]
- Uposatha-days 2024/2025 2568 ថ្ងៃ ឧបោសថ ២០២៤/២០២៥ ២៥៦៨ [1]
- Uposatha-days 2023/2567-2568 ថ្ងៃ ឧបោសថ ២០២៣/២៥៦៧-២៥៦៨ [79]
- Khmer Lunar Calendar app ប្រតិទិនចន្ទគតិខ្មែរ (Sangha-Dana) [76]
- What are the Three Marks of Existence? (by Upasaka Depabhasadhamma) [105]
- Sangha-messanger app - សារហារីសង្ឃ (android) [1534]
- Uposatha-days 2020/2563-2564 ថ្ងៃ ឧបោសថ ២០២០/២៥៦៣-២៥៦៤ [143]
- [en] Wrong Concentration (Miccha Samadhi), Ven. Dhammajiva 2009 [738]
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: May 25, 2020, 08:17:06 AM »Nyom Danilo ,
What Atma thinks: That the holding on views "this is right, nothing else", is something one easy get trapped into. Being so one feels even disappointed about the Sublime Buddha, seeing more and more "contratictions". Things "aren't" but have causes and effects.
How many Suttas would one be able to count where, taken things out of context taken, generalizing them, the Buddha would appeare as someone not of integrity (behaviour). One may even think on the many occations where the Buddha used public disregard for one to come to mind. Think on the story where the Buddha encouraged an old abounded father to heavily blame their sons in the assembling of the whole public. Engouragement to disintegrity?
One point, for sure, required to consider, is that a Asekha does not act on defilements.
Forcing, or giving food into one of the three kinds of conceit, also such is required to direct someone on more subtile ground, as the opposite can be required.
Would your mother, father, teacher who could really cut foolish off, ever look as having acted righteous?
An importand point, not to forget, is that the Sublime Buddha "never" (actually he did in regard of Sangha business) required anybody to act in ways which easy could lead to worldly lose, of which includes honor.
Maybe the topic Der Erhabene Buddha als der größte Angeber, und das Fehlen von Eifersucht
helps.
Yet there are those who, of course take one the opposite view, saying the Buddha wanted others to speak out, advocating the other extreme, view.
Silas, as a means of controll and avoid missconduct and Kamma (mind) aren't the same, or at leadt not easy to seen and one who has not arrived at the source, and knowing their mind.
Is Nyom Danilo able to "grasp" the point here?
A broadly not beloved physic teacher of my person, "rude", "dominant", "heartless", loved to say "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi to justify certain things, yet it's not a matter of right but a matter of having arrived at a real unselfishvand compassioned point or not.
So my person likes to leave this Sutta for consideration behind here:
Suta Sutta: On What is Heard, of which might be good to apply for high meritorious deeds like to share ones merits ("one who thinks that it has the object to pose: should blame: his demerits") or if out of compassion correct ones views.
Or should Atma better have told: "Don't ask me that?", leaving one a beloved stand?
What Atma thinks: That the holding on views "this is right, nothing else", is something one easy get trapped into. Being so one feels even disappointed about the Sublime Buddha, seeing more and more "contratictions". Things "aren't" but have causes and effects.
How many Suttas would one be able to count where, taken things out of context taken, generalizing them, the Buddha would appeare as someone not of integrity (behaviour). One may even think on the many occations where the Buddha used public disregard for one to come to mind. Think on the story where the Buddha encouraged an old abounded father to heavily blame their sons in the assembling of the whole public. Engouragement to disintegrity?
One point, for sure, required to consider, is that a Asekha does not act on defilements.
Forcing, or giving food into one of the three kinds of conceit, also such is required to direct someone on more subtile ground, as the opposite can be required.
Would your mother, father, teacher who could really cut foolish off, ever look as having acted righteous?
An importand point, not to forget, is that the Sublime Buddha "never" (actually he did in regard of Sangha business) required anybody to act in ways which easy could lead to worldly lose, of which includes honor.
Maybe the topic Der Erhabene Buddha als der größte Angeber, und das Fehlen von Eifersucht
helps.Yet there are those who, of course take one the opposite view, saying the Buddha wanted others to speak out, advocating the other extreme, view.
Silas, as a means of controll and avoid missconduct and Kamma (mind) aren't the same, or at leadt not easy to seen and one who has not arrived at the source, and knowing their mind.
Is Nyom Danilo able to "grasp" the point here?
A broadly not beloved physic teacher of my person, "rude", "dominant", "heartless", loved to say "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
to justify certain things, yet it's not a matter of right but a matter of having arrived at a real unselfishvand compassioned point or not.So my person likes to leave this Sutta for consideration behind here:
Suta Sutta: On What is Heard
, of which might be good to apply for high meritorious deeds like to share ones merits ("one who thinks that it has the object to pose: should blame: his demerits") or if out of compassion correct ones views.Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
"I do not say, brahman, that everything that has been seen should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been seen should not be spoken about. I do not say that everything that has been heard... everything that has been sensed... everything that has been cognized should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been cognized should not be spoken about.
"When, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease [not to speak of being motivated by such!], then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about.
"When, for one who speaks of what has been heard... what has been sensed... what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease, then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about."
Or should Atma better have told: "Don't ask me that?", leaving one a beloved stand?
, if he has offended.