These accounts are found here:
There are many accounts in suttas how people were irritated, disliking answers of Buddha – but nevertheless, he explained Right Views and exposed wrong views, for the benefit of all.
What do you think about those stories? Was Buddha wrong?
Were they irritated because of him or because of their own delusions?
Here is another story, from a Dhamma talk of Zen Master Andricevic:
In one of his past lives the Buddha was a young ascetic practicing austerities somewhere in the region of the Himalaya.
The God Indra saw him practicing really hard and decided to test him, so he turned himself into a hungry Rakshasa demon and appeared in front of the young practitioner. He decided to tell him half of a very important Dharma teaching contained in one sentence, but not tell him the other half. The rakshasa said “Everything is constantly arising and perishing; this is the law of birth and death.”
The young practitioner heard this and was extremely curious. He approached the hungry demon and asked him “Please, can you tell me more?” The demon said, “Well, I could, but I am extremely hungry; if you allow me to eat you I will tell you the other half of the teaching.” The young practitioner said “But if you eat me, how will I be able to hear the other half?” And the rakshasa said “Hmm, let me think how we can do that.” Then he came up with an idea: “If you climb up that tree, and I stand below the tree and open my big mouth, as you jump from the tree I will tell you the other half before you fall into my mouth. So you will hear it and then I will eat you.”
The young practitioner really wanted to know the Dharma. But could he trust this hungry demon?
What option did he have – he really wanted to hear the Dharma – so he decided, all right, he’d jump. He climbed up the tree, and as he jumped the hungry demon told him the other part of the teaching:
“When arising and perishing ceases, this is the great peace and joy of nirvana.” These are the words that the young practitioner heard as he was jumping into the mouth of the hungry demon. But then a miracle happened – at the moment that the rakshasa would eat the young ascetic, the demon suddenly turned back into the God Indra and received the young man into his arms. Indra told him he was sure that in his future life he would become the Buddha.
So are you here because you want to hide from irritation, or because you want to learn Dhamma?
No, I didn’t, you are misattributing the line to me…
Sorry I got the wrong line.
If some random guy claims that he has attained arahantship over the net, it’s only fair game he’ll be questioned by other folks over the net.
I can understand it is possible (I have my great doubt though) , that an Arahant might have an erected penis. But I can’t imagine that s/he will shove it some where for what ever reason or obligation. This is not something like consuming food to sustain your body.
Hi friends,
Please keep the conversation here friendly and appropriate to the topic.
Thanks and Metta,
Cara
You can’t imagine a reason other than delusion why would people have children?
I think having children also a delusion. I agree we have children in conventional sense but ultimate sense it is a delusion.
I’m not sure what do you mean, and how do you understand “conventional sense and ultimate sense”.
I’m speaking about these:
In order to not go too much off topic here, I’ll just quote Dana sutta:
This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind
You can’t imagine that continuation of them might have any valid reason?
You do not have to have sex to continuation of the human according to Sutta. (not to mention test tube babies)
There are spontaneously born beings without parents.
(sex organs a latter evolution)
It is not the job of an Arhant to involve with procreation.
It is a nice picture.
I like children.
By the way I am not an Arahant but still trying hard to keep the five precepts.
Now I can’t imagine that. You mean, people should make children without sex? In test tubes? Why?
(I’m not asking about “beings”).
It is not the job of an Arhant to involve with procreation.
What is the job of Arahant?
There is no difference between test tube babies and the babies made with sex without lust.
I disagree, but I can’t provide sutta reference or explanation which would be easy to understand.
But your view was not proven either. Buddha hardly ever said that people should reproduce only in hi tech way.
And he hardly ever claimed what is the job of Arahant.
So that’s a good time to finish our discussion.
1 Like
Hi Alaber (and all)
I feel happy that you feel happy.
Yes, I don’t follow the supposed arahants of the supposed First Council, actually the whole centralised council story is a myth to me, based on part fact, but for the purpose of control. I believe local communities (assemblies, companies) of monks, held ‘council’ each fortnight, not just to recite (again!, see below) Vinaya, but to analyse and compare Dhamma and Vinaya, in line with various teachings of the Buddha and, I believe it was a well established practice (long?) before the Jain leader died.
These are my (main) gripes with the centralised council theory/myth:
- The idea of a council was attributed to Bh. Mahākassapa, when the Buddha had clearly given instruction to hold council to ‘recite and compare teachings for the long lasting purity of the teaching, for the benefit of the many’
- From the ‘First Council’ on, they only recite and do not compare, which is not in line with the Buddha’s instruction, thus, if I still fell into labelling people (identity view) based on the ‘I am’ conceit, I would call all who believe the story of the councils started by the recitation only ‘arahant’ monks, as Mahākassapians (who was said to be a Brahmin and we know they -try to- hold the reigns in Hinduism).
- The ‘arahants’ could not decide which rules were minor and which major, which was needed in order to follow the Buddha’s advice to put aside minor rules if necessary. This says to me they had attachment to rules and rituals and had not attained even SE fruit and thus Vinaya rules become a straightjacket.
To me, knowing which are minor and major rules, is necessary to know what is sīla (morality/ethics) for monks and what is ācāra (good habits), which would be dependent on place and time.
For my full study of the supposed First Council is here: (PDF) Comparative Analysis of Three Records of the First Saṅgha Council | Joe Smith - Academia.edu
best wishes
1 Like
Hi James,
I was referring to any era.
Regarding your point about people who could not read, I gave an alternative for them, but you did not actually say that you agreed that someone could read the suttas (or recite them from memory) to a person who could not read. Acknowledging that would have laid some common ground and would engender friendliness.
I agree with you that either reading or listening to suttas, is about someone’s memory. If we are referring to the historical Buddha, then someone’s memory would have to come into it. The question still seems to stand, how do we find teachings that are based on Right View, not wrong view.
If you want to leave out memory, then I think you would have to go to the Chan/Zen tradition, with the ‘non-reliance on texts’, seemingly interpreted by the majority as, ‘mind to mind transmission that does not need texts’. Though some patriarchs encouraged the study of EBts. In EBTs I think there is no ‘mind to mind transmission’ and the Dhamma is transmitted through the spoken word, unless it is the new Buddha rediscovering the lost Dhamma.
best wishes
Hi brother , thank you .
Yes, sure , I do think it is possible for someone to recite to another person .
On the other hand , I made it as short as possible to show my friendliness .
Yet because due to the reason that one saw in history , mistake or lost of some dhamma , in which the situation were , such as , transmission by memory
were the cause for the losses
or errors that had occurred .
I am not leaving out anything , especially my memory , without which I will be having a great difficulty in this world ! I learn as I embark on the journey . So, naturally I have to be careful and alert to find out the right view versus the wrong view .
If I were to engage in the “suttas less” way, I would not be here at all to join in this forum . How do I know anything or something at all ? I honestly don’t know !
This is how after many years of the journey I somehow “landed” here ! Of course , learning from you and the rest !
So, back to the question , how do we find if the teachings is of right or wrong view ?
Sometimes need to learn from you and others , and try to compare to the suttas .
Let me think and ponder , I am trying to catch up with you and the rest !
Blessed is the one whom radiates the world with dhamma !
May you be well !
1 Like
Thanks brother zhao .
1 Like