Virtual Dhamma-Vinaya Vihara
Vihara => Open Vihara - [Offenes Vihara] => Topic started by: gus on September 30, 2018, 07:52:57 AM
-
Should One Avoid Shameless and Immoral Monks?
“Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks refrain from associating with and paying respect to them? Does this agree with the verse in the Maṅgala Sutta that advises one to avoid the foolish? Is a lay person who shows disregard by shunning immoral and shameless monks following the Maṅgala Dhamma? We would like to hear evidence and case histories from the scriptures regarding good or bad results from this act.”
“Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks continue to pay respect and offer requisites? Are they following the Maṅgala Dhamma that advises us to associate with the wise? Is this behaviour following the advice given in the Maṅgala Sutta or not? Kindly give evidence and case histories regarding good or bad results from this act.”
-
Actually such advices like late Ledi Sayadaw gave here, are not the world of the Buddha, brought out of context, added with personal conjugation, and if taught like that, indeed cause harm for many.
Who would not regard this what known and seen, understood as right? How many would judge right? How many would see it as a charter to act modern: shameless in reaction of dislike, not understanding, not knowing.
If Deva gus likes it to be just this teaching, good. But what if providing certain teachings (even if knowing not really correct in ways and meaning, words and deeds) and others (aside of his own possible mistake) would think he knows, follow it, possible judge wrong, following Devas advice like provided, harm themselves by harming others, cause a lot of harm out of bias, having it taken as approve?
Finding that out or not, wouldn't he fall into regret, remorse, hell by placing cetain bias? Possible totally wrong as well?
My person is not sure, not well-versed, but would wonder if there ever was an advice toward lay people ("children") to act against their parents, act against ones leader (being in dependency, using his goodness, nourishes on it), against Brahmans and Contemplatives?
Yet, on the otherside he gave planty on teaching toward his monks of what will be the effect of their actions, like in Potthakasuttaṃ (http://forum.sangham.net/index.php/topic,7860.msg11365.html#msg11365)
When poeple focus on the duties other might have, fall into wrong view and start to claim, missing to fullfill their duties in their own relation fist and but the outward and not the inward as their problem, when people missuse blind followes, slaves, people depending on others, having no freedom actually to use them for his/here personal objectives, politic, aim, revange... that such really causes much pain, for oneself and others.
As told in another topic: Ledi Sayadaw has certain some good teachings, but he has not overcome sakaya ditthi, spreads a lot of improper discrimination, speaks improper and not informed about other religions and uses householders for things which are not really their business. Layman/housholder-Vipassana/or Jhana-teaching-movement has not brought much good over all and has destructed the Sangha and proper livelihood very much, increased tendency to seek refuge into improper living in householder-dependency under monks, has leaded to increase of social activism, politic involvement, and in all countries where householders have been strongly encouraged to be able to make it equal or even better, conflicts, racism, religion conflicts, instability... have increased.
Once things have been taken over by householder-traditions prosperty, balance and long lasting is gone...
One is not smart in following those desiring judge and punishment.
So in this regard it's good to show disapprovement, at least no signs of approve toward this teaching, or isn't it, following simply of what the Buddha adviced?
Not so much one possible living in not so proper dependency, making gain in many regards in a relation where teaching is traded for food. Being nurished by disciples.
That's how corrupt teachings starts to arise: by giving certain favors for certain gains.
Let my person now step back a little here. Actually there is, are some willing to leave home, follow good and proper behaviour, do not hide, living open, direct and without carry houses for protection. It would be not proper to put so much time and effort into directions and toward those not willing to give up at first place but are used to pay later when the show gave them desired satisfaction.
That's housholder-economy but not the costume of those having left house.
Are there really those who think that it is proper to take side? Are there those who know the long stream of kamma back and forward over long long time?
It's probably good to stress the topic here with fundamentals, leaving this here behind to possible think and reflect about ones motivation and target aims in raising topics: Wisdom over Justice (http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/wisdomoverjustice_en.html).
Helping your self fist means to let go, to learn to give (up) youself fist.
The are enought places to spread and argue about this or that householding-tradition and householder-teacher of this or that sort.
-
Better to ask: How would one possible know for sure that this person is "Shameless and Immoral "?
Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion (http://www.zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.6.02.than_en.html) and having certain faith in:
"Monks, could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?"
"No, lord."
"Good, monks. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.'
"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"No, lord."
"Good, monks. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.'"...
"Now, monks, could a person of integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.'
"Could a person of integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.'
"A person of integrity is endowed with qualities of integrity; he is a person of integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift....
May it give release, may it give cause to increase Saddha by the touch of it.
May it cause the end for meaningless fight for something one like to make his home. May it help to leave it, go beyond and face real refuge for oneself as long one has not destructed all doors out by oneself for long long time, thinking it's possible to be secure within just another one.
Anumodana!