Just wanted to thank you, Cittasanto, for this thread topic, and Bodom and other participants for your selections. I found the Dhammadinna Sutta particularly inspiring.
Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathagata that are deep, deep in
meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness.’ It is in such a way that you should train yourselves.”
If a man does evil, he should not do it again and again; he should not take delight in it; the accumulation of evil leads to suffering. (Dhammapada 117)
If a man does what is good, he should do it again and again; he should take delight in it; the accumulation of good leads to happiness. (Dhammapada 118)
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Cittasanto wrote:
Hi andrew, it maybe better to start a new thread for any thoughts on this particular sutta as it would get more attention that way?
but the quoted part is to do with the livelihood and precepts, not the attainments possible, a householder can not live by the rules of the mendicant communities due to the nature of the household life, how would a householder get by without money, or ability to shop for food, or the food requirements needed for certain work?
it is in essence saying if you are going to be a mendicant be a mendicant, if you are going to be a lay person be a lay person, sure there are some precepts which can be addopted by lay people but the entire set of rules can not be.
Hi Citta,
I have to take a different interpretation of the statement in question than you. To me, "bhikkhu practice" means the threefold training culminating in liberation, not things like robes, eating donated food and so on. The reason I think this makes sense is because following that statement, the Buddha instructs the lay disciple in this sutta towards the end of being "virtuous" and in addition to the end of attaining a rebirth in the deva plane rather than, and falling short of, liberation. To me, this means he is saying "A layperson cannot complete the threefold training (because the household life impedes it), but, falling short of that, here is what he can do -- be virtuous and attain a heavenly rebirth."
I was pointing out that although we know the tradition says the household life is full of impediments to liberation, it's not impossible to attain it from within said. That's the discrepancy.
Nonetheless, I like the sutta; it's concise and shows how to be virtuous and attain a good (even "shining" or "radiant") rebirth, and I like the parts about dana to the sangha, supporting your parents, and not encouraging others to break the five precepts. Neat.
please see the underlined section of my initial reply!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
