limit the influence of secular buddhism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.

should the influence of secular buddhism be limited on this forum?

yes - explain how
22
67%
no - explain why
11
33%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: protecting theravada against the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

salayatananirodha wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:13 am i put a lot of work into making the OP focused and easy to read ...
Similar to the lot of work that was put in to denigrate Piya Tan about "mythology" (here), who is a prolific mainstream uncontroversial scholar?

Bhikkhu Bodhi has called sections of the SN, such as sections 29 to 31, "mythology" (pages 850 & 851 of his SN).

Bhikkhu Sujato has called sections of the DN "mythology"; using the word "myth" sixteen times in his intro to the DN.
Where the biographical texts of the Majjhima emphasize the practical and the personal, the specifics of how our Buddha lived, these discourses exist in an arena of mythic grandeur. Time and space are expanded as the poignant and personal details of the Mahāparinibbāna are set among a series of mythological texts that show the potency of the Buddha and his teachings in the deep past, in the apocalyptic future, and in the present among the orders of gods.

The Dīgha contains truly mythic texts in DN 26 Cakkavattisīhanāda and DN 27 Aggañña

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/th ... tion/11523
:alien:
salayatananirodha wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:13 amthis is the weird, rude, gaslighting ad hom that he pulls in various threads
sorry but the above is not true at all because:

1. a certain member recently posted they are having issues with BDSM fantasies. therefore, no "ad hom" occurred

2. the suttas (SN 46.55) clearly say a heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires, let alone violent sexual fantasies, cannot understand the Teachings clearly. SN 46.55 says:
Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires, and does not know, as it really is, the way of escape from sense-desires that have arisen, then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.

"Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
in summary, what is weird, rude, gaslighting ad hom is newbies starting online crusades against long experienced Buddhist scholars... :soap:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:53 am
To me this current hoopla has nothing whatsoever to do with Secular Buddhism or even "denying rebirth" - it is these two sets of teachings being misrepresented and pitted against each other - the Dhamma taught "to those gone forth" and the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople".

As other posts have noted, the Buddha and arahats don't suddenly disavow mundane right view after gaining enlightenment they actually understand and respect it even more..
And this distinction between lay people and monks as to what was taught them was rapidly disappearing during the time of the Buddha.

samyutta nikaya (bodhi translation)
53 (3) Dhammadinna
On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Bārāṇasī in the Deer Park at
Isipatana. [407] Then the lay follower Dhammadinna, together with five hundred
lay followers
, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to
one side.365 Sitting to one side, the lay follower Dhammadinna then said to the
Blessed One: “Let the Blessed One, venerable sir, exhort us and instruct us in a
way that may lead to our welfare and happiness for a long time.”
“Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘From time to
time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that
are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness
.’ It is in such
a way that you should train yourselves.”

“Venerable sir, it is not easy for us—dwelling in a home crowded with
children, enjoying Kāsian sandalwood, wearing garlands, scents, and unguents,
receiving gold and silver—from time to time to enter and dwell upon those
discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning,
supramundane, dealing with emptiness. As we are established in the five training
rules, let the Blessed One teach us the Dhamma further.”
“Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will possess
confirmed confidence in the Buddha … in the Dhamma … in the Saṅgha.… [..]

We possess the virtues dear to the noble ones,
unbroken … leading to concentration.”
“It is a gain for you, Dhammadinna! It is well gained by you, Dhammadinna!
You have declared the fruit of stream-entry.”
and the Bhikkhus were many times exhorted by the Buddha about the dangers of samsara and rebirth:
SN 15.1 Tiṇakaṭṭha Sutta: Grass and Wood

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus!"
"Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied.

​The Blessed One said this: "Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would cut up whatever grass, sticks, branches, and foliage there are in this Jambudipa and collect them together into a single heap. Having done so, he would put them down, saying [for each one]: 'This is my mother, this my mother's mother: The sequence of that man's mothers and grandmothers would not come to an end, yet the grass, wood, branches, and foliage in this Jambudipa would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samSara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish, and disaster, and swelled the cemetery. It is enough to experience revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them."
SN 15.2 Pathavī Sutta: The Earth

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would reduce this great earth to balls of clay the size of jujube kernels and put them down, saying [for each one]: 'This is my father, this my father's father.' The sequence of that man's fathers and grandfathers would not come to an end, yet this great earth would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish, and disaster, and swelled the cemetery. It is enough to experience revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them."
SN 15.3 Assu Sutta: Tears

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable-this or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, venerable sir, the stream of tears that we have shed as we roamed and wandered through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable-this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans."

"Good, good, bhikkhus! It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in such a way. The stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable-this alone is ​more than the water in the four great oceans. For a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced the death of a mother; as you have experienced this, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable, the stream of tears that you have shed is more than the water in the four great oceans. "
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Coëmgenu »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:37 pm Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:55 pm Well, if that's true, then secular Buddhists are vilified as persona non grata. I'm likely to respond in the negative to a dilettante who claims rebirth is a heresy, but if someone personally finds it a bit unlikely or is skeptical that oughtn't be a concern IMO.
Well said.

And as above, genuinely off-topic posts can easily be reported and moved or removed. When reporting posts people should also be clear on how the post violates the Terms Of Service - logic to the effect that "I don't like it" doesn't cut it. If the real problem is that people are sick of hearing from any particular member(s), they can apply self restraint and/or use the Foe function.

Metta,
Paul. :)
One point that might actually be relevant.

When I joined the forum, I didn't for the longest time use the foes function because I, the computer-non-savvy, thought that the foes list was just a frivolous list of enemies you could have and didn't realize it hid responses. I'm sure if I had looked elsewhere or more closely as a forum n00b, I could have found an explanation of the foes function, but I never did until much later. Not thinking it had a practical use and actually did something, I had felt like it would be like Stephen Harper with his impotent enemies list if I just added people to "foes" for no point other than listing them. So some extra clarification about the foes function, that it is not just a list of enemies, could be good. People who find themselves oft triggered by any poster can use it to self-regulate if they have a hard time otherwise, like when we could formerly opt-out of the Politics forum.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DNS »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:53 am What would Anāthapiṇḍika do? :shrug:
I know what he wouldn't do. He wouldn't deny rebirth.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DNS »

robertk wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:23 pm As other posts have noted, the Buddha and arahats don't suddenly disavow mundane right view after gaining enlightenment they actually understand and respect it even more..
And this distinction between lay people and monks as to what was taught them was to each was rapidly disappearing during the time of the Buddha.
Yes, exactly.

Not saying anyone here has asavas (taints, fermentations) removed, but even if they did, that wouldn't make them all of a sudden disparage mundane right view or start denying rebirth. In fact, the Buddha and the arahants did still talk about rebirth, how rebirth is ended.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
DNS wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:37 pm Not saying anyone here has asavas (taints, fermentations) removed, but even if they did, that wouldn't make them all of a sudden disparage mundane right view or start denying rebirth. In fact, the Buddha and the arahants did still talk about rebirth, how rebirth is ended.
I agree, but it goes both ways. When positions which are firmly rooted in the sutta are attacked for being insufficiently favourable to that which one holds dear, then that's the exact same predicament in reverse.

We either allow the two view perspectives to criticize one another, or we don't. Or, we allow it in certain places (e.g. General) but not others (e.g. Classical, Beginners). No depictions from the Suttas should be "othered" and shunted off to Connections as if they are a separate non-Theravada path.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:56 pm Greetings,
DNS wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:37 pm Not saying anyone here has asavas (taints, fermentations) removed, but even if they did, that wouldn't make them all of a sudden disparage mundane right view or start denying rebirth. In fact, the Buddha and the arahants did still talk about rebirth, how rebirth is ended.
I agree, but it goes both ways. When positions which are firmly rooted in the sutta are attacked for being insufficiently favourable to that which one holds dear, then that's the exact same predicament in reverse.

We either allow the two view perspectives to criticize one another, or we don't. Or, we allow it in certain places (e.g. General) but not others (e.g. Classical, Beginners). No depictions from the Suttas should be "othered" and shunted off to Connections as if they are a separate non-Theravada path.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Denying that the Buddha taught rebirth, or that dependent origination has nothing to do with rebirth, is not Theravāda.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DNS »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:56 pm We either allow the two view perspectives to criticize one another, or we don't. Or, we allow it in certain places (e.g. General) but not others (e.g. Classical, Beginners). No depictions from the Suttas should be "othered" and shunted off to Connections as if they are a separate non-Theravada path.
You are assuming the person who does this (yes, it's really mostly just one individual) is speaking the view of Right View without asavas. I disagree. He is just spouting rebirth denial, really, that's all. It is a separate non-Theravada path, which is his prerogative, but not in every forum, every sub-forum as I and others have suggested. It is appropriate in the great rebirth thread and the Connections to other paths, but not everywhere.

He has stated it several times and asks for sutta references from me and others and when we provide them, he states "it's a mistranslation." Calling himself a Pali scholar does not make him one. Placing diacritics throughout his posts does not make him a Pali scholar either.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:27 am
Not at all. The Buddha appeared to teach the "jati of beings" is mental (SN 12.2) because the Buddha taught "a being" is "a view" (SN 23.2; SN 5.10). Therefore to assert "jati" is physical is certainly materialist. DNS would know this passage from the Bible:
To assert that a dualist theory is a monist theory is a contradiction in terms. You might be tempted to fall back on supervenience, but i would make the same charge. In short, you are making irrational claims. To say that the Buddhist theory of rebirth is materialism would be akin to arguing that a circle is a square. There is nothing in the traditional model which binds one to materialism. I hope that is clearer for you, although I sadly somewhat doubt your ability to keep up here.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

DNS wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:03 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:56 pm We either allow the two view perspectives to criticize one another, or we don't. Or, we allow it in certain places (e.g. General) but not others (e.g. Classical, Beginners). No depictions from the Suttas should be "othered" and shunted off to Connections as if they are a separate non-Theravada path.
You are assuming the person who does this (yes, it's really mostly just one individual) is speaking the view of Right View without asavas. I disagree. He is just spouting rebirth denial, really, that's all. It is a separate non-Theravada path, which is his prerogative, but not in every forum, every sub-forum as I and others have suggested. It is appropriate in the great rebirth thread and the Connections to other paths, but not everywhere.

He has stated it several times and asks for sutta references from me and others and when we provide them, he states "it's a mistranslation." Calling himself a Pali scholar does not make him one. Placing diacritics throughout his posts does not make him a Pali scholar either.
:goodpost:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:00 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:56 pm Greetings,
DNS wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:37 pm Not saying anyone here has asavas (taints, fermentations) removed, but even if they did, that wouldn't make them all of a sudden disparage mundane right view or start denying rebirth. In fact, the Buddha and the arahants did still talk about rebirth, how rebirth is ended.
I agree, but it goes both ways. When positions which are firmly rooted in the sutta are attacked for being insufficiently favourable to that which one holds dear, then that's the exact same predicament in reverse.

We either allow the two view perspectives to criticize one another, or we don't. Or, we allow it in certain places (e.g. General) but not others (e.g. Classical, Beginners). No depictions from the Suttas should be "othered" and shunted off to Connections as if they are a separate non-Theravada path.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Denying that the Buddha taught rebirth, or that dependent origination has nothing to do with rebirth, is not Theravāda.

:goodpost:


  • However,
    • It is more than just not being Theravada.
  • It is vandalization of Buddha's Dhamma.

:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:53 am
To me this current hoopla has nothing whatsoever to do with Secular Buddhism or even "denying rebirth" - it is these two sets of teachings being misrepresented and pitted against each other - the Dhamma taught "to those gone forth" and the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople".

I'm legitimately curious where on earth you got this. How exactly does the Dhamma for those gone forth and those taught to laypeople differ in its teachings on rebirth or the 31 planes? Even to those gone forth and to arahants the Buddha urged them to perform acts of merit, despite merit making often being reviled in todays world as the "lowly" path of laypeople (basically theravada's version of the hinayana mahayana dichotomy). Not to mention the fact that the whole point of those who have gone forth for the most part is to end rebirth. And even then, its not like every person who goes forth must only seek nirvana. If i do recall the monk Ajita went forth under the Lord Gautama Buddha without the intention to attain nibbana in that very life, but instead strove simply to make merit so he can enlighten on his own in the future as the Lord Metteya Buddha.

The idea that the Buddha taught "Both" an intricate metaphor that doesnt actually exist and a literal thing that does exist is the Mahayana concept of non-duality on steroids.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

There is also a difference between "allowing" for both views and actively preaching that only one is right, which again, is what the OP is actually complaining about. in the texts the Buddha actually does talk about rebirth and the 31 planes both metaphorically and literally, although if you look at who these suttas are addressed to they generally arent divided strictly between monastics one, lay people the other. again The issue at hand isnt whether such views are allowed (they are) its if youre allowed to derail every thread into a debate about whether the literal teachings on rebirth were also metaphorical.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Trolling also has to be considered. If someone has been a member here for years yet at every chance derails threads by revisiting a topic that A) we all know where they stand on and B) they know where everyone else stands, then it looks less like honest debating and more like attention seeking trolling. An honest person would, after so many years, simply accept the disagreement and leave it at that. A troll would not.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:55 pm Trolling also has to be considered. If someone has been a member here for years yet at every chance derails threads by revisiting a topic that A) we all know where they stand on and B) they know where everyone else stands, then it looks less like honest debating and more like attention seeking trolling. An honest person would, after so many years, simply accept the disagreement and leave it at that. A troll would not.
This is an excellent point. If it is blatantly obvious they are just here for attention and ego stroking due to behavior as described above, rather than to learn or contribute to ppl who want to learn, something should be done to at least limit their ability to derail legitimate thread topics to feed their own ego. This can also be made a rule without singling out any particular form or interpretation of Buddhism.

I posted this passage earlier but i think its relevant to differentiate between narcissists who use the Dhamma to debate for attention. and those who actually want to use Dhamma for their benefit. There's a reason the Lord Buddha described people in the first category as, in this translation at least, "worthless".
"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas [5] with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and grasp it by the coils or by the tail. The water-snake, turning around, would bite him on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs, and from that cause he would suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

"But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Locked