"When the disciple of the noble ones has arrived at this purity of equanimity & mindfulness, he sees — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.
retrofuturist wrote:Does anyone know if the 227 precepts are online somewhere?
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Manapa,
There doesn't seem to be anything along the lines of what davcut's is enquiring about...
Introduction to the Patimokkha Rules
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... intro.html
One is the narrative of the Second Council, during which the bhikkhus of Vesālī defended ten practices on the grounds that they had learned them from their teachers. The elders who judged the case, though, insisted on evaluating the practices in terms of whether they adhered to the Canon. The primary point of controversy — the question of whose authority was greater, the Canon's or the teachers' — was point six:
"'The practice of what is habitual, sir — is it allowable?'
"'What is the practice of what is habitual, my friend?'
"'To practice (thinking), this is the way my preceptor habitually practiced; this is the way my teacher habitually practiced — is this allowable?'
"'The practice of what is habitual is sometimes allowable, sometimes not.'" — Cv.XII.2.8
What this means, as the elders showed in their conduct of the meeting, is that one's teacher's and preceptor's practices are to be followed only when in accordance with the Canon.
Right Speech samma vaca wrote:"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."
davcuts wrote:Thanks everyone!
I have made remarks about my teacher that people have condemned me to hell for saying. Mainly I've stated he has hurt a lot of people with his actions. Is saying such a thing in Theravada Buddhism justification for someone to spend aeons in hell?
I can understand how criticizing someone who has reached realizations is not a wise thing to do. I don't however understand why speaking the truth no matter what it might be can send someone to hell for aeons. It seems fear is used in Tibetan Buddhism to make sure people obey their teachers at all cost. Even if that teacher is abusing you, speaking out is considered breaking samaya. Is it the same with Theravada Buddhism?
Breaking samaya according to Tibetan Buddhism is the worst action someone can do. They don't just go to hell, they go to the worst possible hell, imprisoned in molten lava for aeons. So how is this viewed in Theravada Buddhism. Can someone say they believe their teacher has harmed a great many of people without the fear of hell?
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
 "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
Manapa wrote: The Buddha Allowed harsh speach, there is no rule against saying what is true in a way that would be helpful,
davcuts wrote:So could a Theravada practitioner state they feel there former teacher was a cult leader, or would that be breaking some precept?
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala and 4 guests