Reincarnation

I know that. You just refuse to accept (even the possibility) it could be more than just an interpretation. I call that closed mindedness.

If you claimed your understanding was based on careful study and testing, having applied any advice the Buddha gave about studying his teaching when I had not done so, I would be open to the possibility you had achieved something more than I (and maybe even a benefit ascribed to following the Buddha’s teaching), since you had practiced differently than I.

Yes, I take this as your arrogant judgement (and expression of doubt in the efficacy of the Buddha’s teaching).

I have pointed out making statements about others is arrogant, unless one has mind reading skills (and confirmed with others the way they think), but you have ignored this and diverted.

I take this as evidence you don’t want a discussion based on truth.

this is now totally off topic

best wishes

It is in eradicating the fetters that one finds salvation, not in the ritual of ‘becoming a monk’ and adopting certain rules and regulations. That is the third fetter to overcome.

Nowhere have I seen the Buddha say ‘you must become a monk to find freedom’, but rather he says, you must give up the fetters or taints etc to do so.

The quote usually interpreted as ‘you must become a monk to find freedom’ is him saying ‘one cannot realise freedom with the bonds (fetters) of a family life’. I would say, they are the lower fetters, but maybe someone reading knows where he has explained exactly which fetters he was talking about there. Then there would be the upper fetters that homeleavers (or whomever) would have to overcome also.

It would be the case that many monks haven’t even eradicated the lower fetters, as one doesn’t automatically realise Stream Entry by becoming a monk.

best wishes

3 Likes

Participants are reminded that participation in this forum assumes an agreement to follow the guidelines.

Following the Buddhas teachings on Right Speech enables beneficial communication and establishes wise rules for discussions. This, in turn, enables SC and this forum to meet it’s goal of providing access to the Dhamma, by ensuring that it is a harmonious and supportive environment in which to explore the teachings of the Buddha and EBT’s.

:anjal::dharmawheel:

Viveka
(on behalf of the moderators)

9 Likes

Thanks Viveka. I have pointed out elsewhere that limiting speech to only pleasant, would seem to be not Dhammic. If this is enforced here, then it would seem, this is not the place for me. The qualities of right speech, as I understand them, are: true, beneficial and either pleasant to hear or unpleasant to hear.

2 Likes

@Brother_Joe

With regard to your comment here:

Yes, we do make it a practice to enforce the guidelines for using this forum. This includes speaking with gentleness.

7 Likes

I love this. I hope I can learn to apply this to my life. I realize just how little I know. I read the free online book mentioned by Suaimhneas and I was amazed just how deep Buddhism goes. Any doubts that I have are being slowly stripped away. Just seeing how deep the virtue is in the Buddha’s words is incredible.

I have a better understanding of what a steam-enterer is now. It seems like a reasonable goal that I can attain in this lifetime. I wonder if learning to love unconditionally is what can destroy the third fetter of relying on rituals and laws (it sounds like the legalism that Jesus Christ condemned of the Pharisees). Legalism kills the soul and makes us go cold to love as we start judging all of those around us.

6 Likes

Yes, I think it’s right to enforce guidelines, of course. I believe communities need guidelines. Also the history of Vinaya shows that guidelines often need revising.

Qualifying my statements, identifying them as expressions of my opinion/s and talking about behaviour not the person, is my version of ‘speaking gently and not harshly’.

I will say: that is arrogant behaviour (speech) to me (arrogance can show itself at any time in an non-arahant)
I will not say: you are arrogant (because that is an identification statement from identity view and puts people in a fixed pattern in my mind, not allowing that they could express themselves non-arrogantly at any moment)

If I have to give up constructive criticism, criticism about behaviour, then this is not the place for me, as I believe that is adhammic. The Buddha set the example that I must try to follow and he spoke constructive criticism of behaviour. If you wish to share with me how you understand dhammic constructive criticism of behaviour, (which can be difficult to hear), I’m open to that, with the intention that I may be missing something that I could learn. That might be done in a new topic or privately.

best wishes

1 Like

I am not sure how one arrives at the conclusion that constructive criticism is not allowed here. It does seem clear that there are two ways of expressing constructive criticism: harshly and kindly. In my experience, kind constructive criticism is actually more constructive and therefore more skillful. The only time I speak harshly is when someone is about to cause immediate harm to themselves or others. I have told people that they will die in less than 5 minutes if they continue with what they are about. But even then I would not say, “stop that stupid behavior now!”. It is kinder to say, “Please stop, you will die if you continue doing that and I need you to drive me home.” They stopped. And yes. They would have fallen to their death and died.

9 Likes

Cool! Glad you liked the book. I actually want to respond in more detail to one or two points in your post, but that’ll have to wait a day or two (am very busy and right in the middle of something at the moment :slight_smile: ).

1 Like

I said ‘if…’

1 Like

As this thread has gone way off course, and the original post has been addressed here and in other threads, I’m closing the topic.