Sir, what is wrong with sects?
Regards
A sect has split off and deviated from the true Dhamma. There were no sects when the Buddha started teaching. Most of the monks followed the teaching diligently and gained personal realisation of the Dhamma for themselves. There was no danger for them to fall into wrong views again.whynotme wrote:Sir, what is wrong with sects?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.
Agreed!retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.
Metta,
Retro.
Thank you sirBhikkhu Pesala wrote:A sect has split off and deviated from the true Dhamma. There were no sects when the Buddha started teaching. Most of the monks followed the teaching diligently and gained personal realisation of the Dhamma for themselves. There was no danger for them to fall into wrong views again.whynotme wrote:Sir, what is wrong with sects?
Devadatta created the first schism in the Sangha — the first sect. A hundred years after the Buddha's passing away, other monks started accepting money, and doing other things contrary to the Buddha's teaching. The Second Buddhist Council was held to re-affirm what was the true Dhamma and true Vinaya.
Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.
Don't pay any attention to what others do, one should follow the Sallekha Dhamma and try to develop the Noble Eightfold Path. If you keep to the path, you won't get side-tracked in the forest of views.
Here I was, thinking it was both a joke and a teaching.Modus.Ponens wrote:And here I was, tinking that Venerable Pesala was making Ajhan Brahm's joke about sects. It turns out that it was a teaching.
Where is your recently found humour vein, Bhante?
No disrespect meant.
Well, the Buddha said that one will make jewel dhamma disappear sooner and get bad kammas when say something the Buddha didn't told as he told, say something he told as he didn't told:Ñāṇa wrote:FTR, according to the Mahāyāna Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra as quoted by Śāntideva in his Compendium of Training (Śikṣāsamuccaya), four principles indicate that an utterance (or statement, teaching, etc.) is compatible with the speech of the Buddha:
(i) it is connected with truth, not with what is untrue;
(ii) it is connected with dharma, not with what is not dharma;
(iii) it leads to giving up defilement, not to increasing defilement;
(iv) it points out the praiseworthy qualities of nirvāṇa, not those of saṃsāra.
How do you know what the Buddha said? Were you there?whynotme wrote:Well, the Buddha said....
Of course not I was not there, but it is in Nikaya. It is well preserved and doesn't contradict itself.Ñāṇa wrote:How do you know what the Buddha said? Were you there?whynotme wrote:Well, the Buddha said....
Dear whynotmewhynotme wrote:Well, the Buddha said that one will make jewel dhamma disappear sooner and get bad kammas when say something the Buddha didn't told as he told, say something he told as he didn't told:Ñāṇa wrote:FTR, according to the Mahāyāna Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra as quoted by Śāntideva in his Compendium of Training (Śikṣāsamuccaya), four principles indicate that an utterance (or statement, teaching, etc.) is compatible with the speech of the Buddha:
(i) it is connected with truth, not with what is untrue;
(ii) it is connected with dharma, not with what is not dharma;
(iii) it leads to giving up defilement, not to increasing defilement;
(iv) it points out the praiseworthy qualities of nirvāṇa, not those of saṃsāra.
Like the most of mahayana suttas weren't told by the Buddha but said were told by him (this action will make dhamma disappear sooner)
Like said that arahant is inferior to Bodhivastta when comes to freedom (the Buddha didn't taught that but said that taught that, also this action will make dhamma disappear sooner).
Praiseworthy qualities of Nirvana but attack an arahant to attain that for himself (this too, will make dhamma disapper sooner)
Most of mahayana suttas are like that, they contradict themselves. If they want to tell something, why fakes it as the Buddhas words? Why don't be themselves like many other monks? The Nikayas weren't all said by the Buddha but people have no problem with that, why mahayanists needed to lie? Is lying connected with truth? Is lying connected with dharma?
Compatibility is one thing, lying about dhamma is a whole different thing.
Regards.