Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

nibbuti wrote:

ignobleone wrote:Sorry, I have decided not to argue with non-buddhist.

No problem, friend. What is true & beneficial (Dhamma) can be seen by the wise for oneself w/o argueing, denomination or personality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

The problem is, non-buddhist cannot see the Dhamma, let alone becomes wise because of Dhamma.
The reason I replied to your first comment is because I don't get why a non-buddhist tries to correct a buddhist. It just doesn't make any sense.

ignobleone wrote:

nibbuti wrote:

ignobleone wrote:Sorry, I have decided not to argue with non-buddhist.

No problem, friend. What is true & beneficial (Dhamma) can be seen by the wise for oneself w/o argueing, denomination or personality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

The problem is, non-buddhist cannot see the Dhamma, let alone becomes wise because of Dhamma.
The reason I replied to your first comment is because I don't get why a non-buddhist tries to correct a buddhist. It just doesn't make any sense.

You don't neet do be a buddhist to be able to see the Dhamma.

acinteyyo wrote:

ignobleone wrote: The problem is, non-buddhist cannot see the Dhamma, let alone becomes wise because of Dhamma.
The reason I replied to your first comment is because I don't get why a non-buddhist tries to correct a buddhist. It just doesn't make any sense.

You don't neet do be a buddhist to be able to see the Dhamma.

Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

ignobleone wrote: Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

So do you consider that you understand "higher level, sublime Dhamma" yourself, ignobleone ?

.

ignobleone wrote:

acinteyyo wrote:

ignobleone wrote: The problem is, non-buddhist cannot see the Dhamma, let alone becomes wise because of Dhamma.
The reason I replied to your first comment is because I don't get why a non-buddhist tries to correct a buddhist. It just doesn't make any sense.

You don't neet do be a buddhist to be able to see the Dhamma.

Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

This may be so, but being a "buddhist" is not a required condition to see higher Dhamma. I would say Mr. Gotama himself wasn't a "buddhist"...

Greetings,

ignobleone wrote:Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

Oooh... be careful. That's how "Buddhist" cults start!



Metta,
Retro.

Aloka wrote:

ignobleone wrote: Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

So do you consider that you understand "higher level, sublime Dhamma" yourself, ignobleone ?

.

I never mean to say so. It's just for an information. Ehipassiko or just leave it.

acinteyyo wrote:

ignobleone wrote: Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

This may be so, but being a "buddhist" is not a required condition to see higher Dhamma. I would say Mr. Gotama himself wasn't a "buddhist"...

buddhists = have sadha, non-buddhists = don't have
buddhist = Buddha follower, Mr. Gotama = follows himself? Please give me a break!

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

ignobleone wrote:Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

Oooh... be careful. That's how "Buddhist" cults start!



Metta,
Retro.

Also be careful you need to be able to recognize Buddhist cults.

ignobleone wrote:

acinteyyo wrote:

ignobleone wrote: Dhamma includes everything. Simple Dhamma is easy to see by anyone, but higher level, sublime Dhamma is not easy and not for everyone.

This may be so, but being a "buddhist" is not a required condition to see higher Dhamma. I would say Mr. Gotama himself wasn't a "buddhist"...

buddhists = have sadha, non-buddhists = don't have
buddhist = Buddha follower, Mr. Gotama = follows himself? Please give me a break!

so a non-buddhist can not have faith that there is enlightenment, a way to enlightenment, and those who have practiced rightly so can declare that path? I think the Jain have faith, maybe from a Buddhist perspective in the wrong place but they have faith.

Cittasanto wrote:

ignobleone wrote: buddhists = have sadha, non-buddhists = don't have
buddhist = Buddha follower, Mr. Gotama = follows himself? Please give me a break!

so a non-buddhist can not have faith that there is enlightenment, a way to enlightenment, and those who have practiced rightly so can declare that path? I think the Jain have faith, maybe from a Buddhist perspective in the wrong place but they have faith.

Please differentiate between "can not have" and "don't have". "Don't have" doesn't mean "can not have".
In Buddhist context, 'faith' means faith in Tathagata.
Of course if you talk about Jainism, 'faith' means faith in Jainism.

ignobleone wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

ignobleone wrote: buddhists = have sadha, non-buddhists = don't have
buddhist = Buddha follower, Mr. Gotama = follows himself? Please give me a break!

so a non-buddhist can not have faith that there is enlightenment, a way to enlightenment, and those who have practiced rightly so can declare that path? I think the Jain have faith, maybe from a Buddhist perspective in the wrong place but they have faith.

Please differentiate between "can not have" and "don't have". "Don't have" doesn't mean "can not have".
In Buddhist context, 'faith' means faith in Tathagata.
Of course if you talk about Jainism, 'faith' means faith in Jainism.

That seams false!
it was a question in the guise of a statement, in other words there is more to faith than in one thing. The now underlined part above is a statement of faith both Buddhists and non-buddhist can have faith in. The Buddha had faith that enlightenment is possible BTW.