Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Tags:

Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg, aac
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: May 10, 2018, 02:08:01 AM »

To give the possible most comprehensive answer in regard of care, found in the scripts in regard of care, which is reflected in many ways through out the teachings, and at least also show why the Buddha himselves dedicated his whole rest of life to nothing else but speaking either in praise or blame in regard of deeds done, doing or objected to do.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

Then the wanderer Potaliya approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had exchanged greetings and cordial talk, the wanderer Potaliya sat down to one side, and the Blessed One then said to him:

"Potaliya, there are these four kinds of persons found existing in the world. What four? (1) Here, some person speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; but he does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (2) Some other person speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely; but he does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (3) Still another person does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely; and he does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (4) And still another person speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and he also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. These are the four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Now, Potaliya, which among these four kinds of persons seems to you the most excellent and sublime?"

"There are, Master Gotama, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world.[1] [101] Of those four, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely; and who does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is equanimity."

"There are, Potaliya, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Of those four, the one that is the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Potaliya, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case."[2]

"There are, Master Gotama, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Of those four, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case.

"Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the darkness so those with good eyesight can see forms. I now go for refuge to Master Gotama, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Let Master Gotama consider me a lay follower who from today has gone for refuge for life."

Note that "proper time" is not to be understand just lit. but in a sense to "occasion, incl. place and people/kind of minds to be possible touched, e.g. circumstances, objectivity and it does not necessary be a matter of those seemingly addressed by a certain speech, which incl. the quality of truthfully and timeless in regard of the nature of circumstances, visible for those with less dust in the eyes. Invisible, even if direct addressed, if to much dust in the eyes.

But again, the Buddha, in regard of duty to care on, did place only toward his Bhikkhus certain duties and never toward those outside, while he also "released" his Bhikkhus of many duties they would have in ordinary relations an sociaties.

Nevertheless: Aside of the matter of not carring about Dhamma, Vinaya and matters of respects required for the path and maintaining the existens of his founded sociaty possible long, he didn't place "care on others" anywhere higher than ones care for one self and what has fallen to one.

So care for/on others would not functioning as means to justify improper means and defiled intents to take over the leadership of undertakings and actions in the name of the Noble Ones.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."

And what has been fallen to one? Hindrences, defilement, obstacles and what ever that makes one not acting skillful, e.g. in short the five clinging aggregates, inwardly and outwardly or both, in direct relation to ones sphere and possible to be managed and straightened by ones deeds and right effort.

In regard of the misconduct of disrespect in manners of "not caring" or giving the impression that Noble Ones do not care on what should be cared for, see "Chapter 8, Respect " in BMC 2, here just mentioned a "teaser" of a huge and actually basic issue and often overseen "first general precept" without which no prosperity to a better, not to speak of abounding the cause of suffering can be reached:

An attitude of proper respect is a sign of intelligence. As SN VI.2 indicates, it is a requisite condition for gaining knowledge and skill, for it creates the atmosphere in which learning can take place. This is especially true in a bhikkhu's training, where so little can be learned through impersonal means such as books, and so much must be learned through personal interaction with one's teachers and fellow bhikkhus. AN VIII.2 notes that the first prerequisite for the discernment basic to the holy life is living in apprenticeship to a teacher for whom one has established a strong sense of respect. This attitude of respect opens the heart to learn from others, and shows others one's willingness to learn. At the same time, it gives focus and grounding to one's life. SN VI.2 reports the Buddha as saying, "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference." This was why, after his Awakening — when he had nothing further to learn in terms of virtue, concentration, discernment, release, or knowledge and vision of release — he decided to honor and respect the Dhamma to which he had awakened.

However, an attitude of respect benefits not only the individual who shows respect, but also the religion as a whole. AN VII.56 maintains that for the true Dhamma to stay alive, the bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, male lay followers, and female lay followers must show respect and deference for the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha; for the training, concentration, heedfulness, and the duties of hospitality. If the proper respect and deference were lacking, how would the true Dhamma survive?

In response to these reflections, the Saṅgha has developed an etiquette of respect that is quite elaborate, with many variations from country to country, and Community to Community. A wise policy is to become fluent in the "respect vocabulary" of one's Community, even in areas not covered by the Vinaya, for the sake of the Community's smooth functioning. It is also wise to know which aspects of respect are required by the Vinaya and which are open to variation, so that one will learn tolerance for those variations wherever they occur.

Some of the Vinaya's rules concerning respect — such as duties toward one's mentors, the proper hospitality to show to bhikkhus newly-arrived in one's monastery, and the etiquette for showing respect for Saṅgha property — are included in the protocols discussed in the following chapter. Here we will cover the rules concerning respect that lie outside of those protocols. These rules cover five areas: paying homage, respect for the Dhamma, seniority, the proper response to criticism, and prohibitions against improper jokes.

And the specific rule in the Patimokkha in regard of disrespect, which is actually serious, leads quick to more serious offenses:

54. Disrespect is to be confessed.

This rule refers to cases where one has been admonished for one's behavior. The factors for the full offense are two.

1) Effort: Having been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu who cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya, one shows disrespect
2) Object: for the bhikkhu or for the rule.
We will discuss these factors in reverse order.

Object. Only if the bhikkhu cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya is this factor grounds for a pācittiya. If he criticizes one's actions, citing standards of behavior for the sake of being "self-effacing, scrupulous, or inspiring; for lessening (defilement) or arousing energy" that are not formulated in the Vinaya, this factor becomes grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Commentary limits "not formulated" to teachings in the suttas and Abhidhamma, but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to suggest that this is so. Its normal way of referring specifically to the suttas and mātikās (the basis for the Abhidhamma) is to say, "another Dhamma," and so its choice of words here seems intended to include any principle, whether expressed in the other parts of the Canon or not, that aims at the goal of being self-effacing, etc. Thus any teaching devoted to such goals would be grounds for a dukkaṭa.

If the person admonishing one is not a bhikkhu, then regardless of whether he/she cites a rule in the Vinaya or standards for being self-effacing, etc., outside of the Vinaya, then the penalty for showing disrespect to that person is a dukkaṭa.

Perception as to whether the person doing the admonishing is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42).

The validity of the admonition is not an issue here. Even if the other person is really an ignorant fool, has misinterpreted the rule, or has peculiar ideas on being self-effacing, etc., one should be careful not to show disrespect in word or deed.

If one is being criticized against standards that have nothing to do with being self-effacing, etc., it would not be grounds for an offense. However, a wise policy would be to avoid showing disrespect for another person, regardless of the situation.

Effort. There are two possible targets for one's disrespect — the person and the rule — and two ways of showing it: by word or by gesture.

Disrespect for the person includes —

saying things that show disrespect in either a crude or subtle way, e.g., "Who are you to tell me?" "It's presumptuous of you to pass judgment when you aren't in my position," "Your critical attitude shows that you have some messy emotional problems that you would be well-advised to look into," "Get lost!" or "Go to hell!"
or making a rude gesture or even a slight facial expression to show one's contempt.
Disrespect for the rule includes —

saying, "That's a stupid rule," "That rule doesn't apply to me";
stubbornly repeating the action for which one was admonished (this point is covered in Mv.IV.17.7-9);
or making a rude gesture, saying, "This is what I think of that rule."
None of the texts explicitly confine this factor to disrespect expressed in the person's presence. Thus it would seem that if, as a result of the person's comments, one expresses disrespect behind his or her back, it would fulfill this factor as well.

Further action. If one persists in acting disrespectfully when being admonished, one may also be subject to Sg 12 or to suspension from the Community (see BMC2, Chapter 20).

Non-offenses. There is no offense if, being admonished, one states simply that one was taught differently by one's teachers. (The precise words in the Vibhaṅga are, "Such is our teachers' tradition and catechism." (§)) The Commentary contains a discussion of which sort of teachers' tradition is worthy of including in this exemption, but this seems to miss the point. If one can rightfully cite one's teacher's instruction as the reason for one's behavior, then regardless of whether the teacher is right or wrong, such a citation would not count as disrespect.

As Dhp 76 says, one should regard a person who points out one's faults as a guide who points out hidden treasure. If one shows disrespect to such a guide, it is unlikely that he/she will feel inclined to point out any hidden treasure ever again.

A good example of how to receive admonishment was set by Ven. Ānanda during the First Council (Cv.XI.1.10). Although he was admonished for committing acts that the Buddha had not declared to be offenses, and although he did not see that he had committed any error, still he willingly confessed his actions as offenses so as to show good faith in his fellow bhikkhus.

A related rule. Pc 71 covers the case of a bhikkhu who, trying to avoid an offense under this rule, uses a ploy to get out of altering his behavior in response to an admonition. For details, see the explanation under that rule.

Summary: Speaking or acting disrespectfully after having been admonished by another bhikkhu for a breach of the training rules is a pācittiya offense.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: May 09, 2018, 12:42:09 PM »

Being then asked "What about metta and the Brahma Viharas?", the Bala, thinging to be in the position of being a giver rather then simply a co-consumer, forgets again that duties and Sila are required befor generosity, answering, seemingly wishing to appear cool:


They would be relevant in cases where a different sense of "to care" is intended by the speaker and where "I don't care" would mean more or less: "I don't have mettā and karuṇā."

It's more than just a case of strong doubt, that someone impressed by scholars like Bodhi or Analayo has not even a slight idea of what metta and karuna means, not be speak of able to share such.

One who does not fulfill his duties, stick to Silas fist, what ever merits he might try to do will not fill to a perfection like a water tank put into the open, in the rain, but upside down will never be full.

How could one not carring about what has fallen to him ever care about others and give?

Sila and/or duties are the first measures of care, giving, metta and compassion, the next, not letting go of the fist, and the means all around it is mindfulness toward the four references, for without that, all of this is impossible.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

I  have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sumbhas. Now there is a Sumbhan town named Sedaka. There the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks!"

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat, having erected a bamboo pole, addressed his assistant, Frying Pan: 'Come, my dear Frying Pan. Climb up the bamboo pole and stand on my shoulders.'

"'As you say, Master,' Frying Pan answered the bamboo acrobat and, climbing the bamboo pole, stood on his shoulders.

"So then the bamboo acrobat said to his assistant, 'Now you watch after me, my dear Frying Pan, and I'll watch after you. Thus, protecting one another, watching after one another, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'

"When he had said this, Frying Pan said to him, 'But that won't do at all, Master. You watch after yourself, and I'll watch after myself, and thus with each of us protecting ourselves, watching after ourselves, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'

"What Frying Pan, the assistant, said to her Master was the right way in that case.

"Monks, a frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself.

"And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.

"And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy. This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself.

"A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself."

It has to be said that the current poll of who is most "woke" in the sense of the common meaning of the world do perfectly reflect the situation as it actually is, yet the fool does of course not understand it's meaning... what is of benefit, what for ones loose...

To quote the words of someone having certain vision toward awakening, someone who cares:

Thus the meaning of the OP question is, “ Who is the most alert to situations where compassion is required and most politically active?”, which follows in the steps of Bikkhu Bodhi’s recent activism, noting also he lives in a Mahayana monastery. This reflects on the type of practice of the OP, who is now predictibly, as an expression of compassion, calling for Dhammapadas to be distributed in prisons.

One should not think that this was dedicated an sacrificed toward fools since it would be not proper to dedicate the best fruits toward hopeless and into the desert.

May all which has certain Upanissaya toward light may find nurishment and joy for a grow toward a better from it.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: May 09, 2018, 10:32:24 AM »

And it's not surprising, the justification and again points to your on problem "seeking for gain an material (spiritualism)" rather than of what the Noble Ones are possessed of, wisdom and release:

Quote from: another respectless and worthless comment of another bala https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=31857&p=470916#p470905
Whether or not it's fitting to attach no importance to someone's views on Dhamma depends, I think, on who the person is. For example, if I hear that scholars of the calibre of Bhikkhus Bodhi or Anālayo, or Professors Gethin or Harvey, have voiced some view differing from my own, then I would care. I would want to look into the matter to see what texts and what chain of reasoning had led them to their views. As these are men who've earned the right to have their views on Dhamma taken seriously, to dismiss anything they say without troubling to investigate it would strike me as rash and imprudent.

followed by the pets-keeper's pointless comment of one sitting in a glass store. Indeeds hopelessness has also it's DNS and only seldom being are able to escape from their even low bounds, but seeking after them, again and again. Mara-worshipping and fire-worshipping.

So it need to be asked why wise people ever care and "waste" time for hopeless? Would they, do, or did they?

"Wie der Herr, so's G'scher", "like the master so the Slave". To get a small overview of where you actually stand, look and check both, you masters and your slaves and it is wise to care about it, to get ride of what is neither really worthy of being ones master nor worthy to hold as ones heirs, childs, yet if not really a master your self, how endless worthless to regard one self to know of what is a clean-blood, being and living amoung mules.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: May 09, 2018, 08:05:20 AM »

Like asked here , as a meta-question and issue on "not caring":

Is a Bhikkhu approaches in a disrespectful manner the truth, the Dhamma, the Vinaya, putting other things above them, this is to be regarded not only as lack of truthfulness but also respectless toward the Dhamma and a violation of basic rules.

Not to discuss and elaborate the carelessness or taking side of people not freed of even low fetters adorning their defiled acts with the truthfullness of the sages.

But just to do not burn out yourself, it is pointless, it is of no benefit and would not find ground for good growing, to expain respectless people, toward the Gems, matter of respect.

So better always think, "why I am in association with respectless people?", "what makes me face mirrors of annoyance again and again", "why do I seek after careless people with no regards and no valide and for all benefical authorities."

It could be that you, out of desire for sensuality, desire for becoming and being, don't like to care about it, of course.

Be/do truthfully! And since not easy, it needs a lot of let go and care. Althought even the Bodhisatta still did a lot wrong, he never failed in truthfulness and where ever beings stick, turn around, spin in circles, they stick there because denying the truth.

Anumodana!