Hanzze wrote:Individual wrote:He might say that, but his mind should remain clear.
In other words, he uses conventional language, but not conventional thinking.
Good solution, but wouldn't it in this case a lie? A tactic?
Hanzze wrote:Individual wrote:It is a lie, but the monk did not create it. He merely accepts the lie and gives it back, to avoid too much confusion.
Because it is not always possible or necessary to explain anatta. Many suttas are written about anatta, but people might read them and still not understand.
So, you have to use conventional language, or people will think you are crazy or stupid.
That would maybe the point if two monks are meeting.
Questioned by a layman? Knowing the layman is deep attached with concept of somebody in a orange robe.
Hanzze wrote:tell: "I am a Monk."?
Would a Buddhist monk tell: "I am a Buddhist."?
Would a follower of the path call him self a Buddhist?
...from the view of practice, except of situations where one is needed to answer ( local law)
Users browsing this forum: waryoffolly and 12 guests