On Alajji - matters

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

Coming from here.
A. Bhikkhu wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:41 am
Johann wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:13 am And interesting topic, Bhante. Not sure they could progess. Worthy a topic, but not in public (maybe Bhante knows a little about speaking on Vinaya).
And, change the avatar! How undisciple-able could one act... Book monks with no Nissaya.
How many vassa do you actually have now? Just asking so as to know proper way of addressing etc.
Bhante. Formal good to prepear yourself that Bhante wouldn't be in between failing in regard of Vinaya or in regard of Dhamma.
There are three kinds of Seniors usually not paying respect, even if just a Samana in front: 1. fools holding identification cards of all kinds. 2. Those not knowing that he speaks Dhamma Vinaya 3. Those firm in Vinaya and/or Arahats.

My person left about 12 years ago as Pabbajito, and is not within you community regulations. But may Bhante know him as one who knows paths and places he would hardly ever get aware.
There is no vinaya issue when speaking publicly about factors of offences in general, but if you feel not comfortable, leaving the topic aside for now is also fine with me.
As there are no rules telling it's a fault to carry guns.
Don't yours have, because of the destructive dangers, not very exact rules on how to address, speak, regard... on manners of Vinaya? Don't yours not even walk in the sphere of Sg and pc when open the moth foolish?
And instead do apply the meaning proper, yours walk around naked and annoying in the public... for favors and for elevations.
As I see it, you are very concerned about the purity of the sāsana, which is commendable (I am also concerned about the same), but I think your constant ad hominem attacks and character judgments on people (even bhikkhus) you don't even know (now here you make incorrect assumptions about how...
Is it wise to think that one knows oneself, others wouldn't see what I don't see? A foolish child also thinks that his father goes for harm. Good to consider of whom addresses one very serious.
I have spent my first five years as a monk without nissaya) will create a lot of unnecessary suffering and conflict for yourself. The intention is one thing, but you also need to consider the outcome.
So he's not aware that one not bearing the attributes of an Arahat has to stay in dependency a lifetime, and also not what the compassionate motivated Commentaries have to say.
It's because those not proper to leave Nissaya act like fools, have no father to tame them and are hardly ever to disciple. Not to speak of former wanderer of other sects, who prefer to relay on the Sangha (google + co.)
Someone once told me about some evangelical preacher. He started lecturing the people (actually shouting at them) who frequented the Khao San Road, Bangkok, that they would be going to hell due to their debauchery. People started, when I remember correctly, to throw things at him and probably later, I can imagine, took a drink or two more to forget about this fellow who abused them. He might have been factually right in his statements, but he disregarded the how to and thought of himself as morally superior, not a good mix for living in harmony with people and influencing them for the better. For that reason, perhaps, the Parivāra mentions that people in authority within the saṅgha shouldn't use force. Bottom line: Critiquing is good, but only at the right time and place and considering the outcome, also speaking kind words.
It's good that Bhante sees the huge sacrifices of those not fearing to lose reputations or what else. Yet, instead to apply it proper, Bhante uses it as defend.
Johann wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:13 am alajji, is the common word, Bhante. But they don't listen to what doesn't fit their old culture they have not abounded.
We cannot say that when they have disrobed that they are still alajji, automatically, for the rest of their lives. Some have lived a good monk's life as a whole, but have made only one serious mistake (i.e. committed a pārājika); those are not the same as the ones associated with the saṅgha by theft, i.e. continuing to wear the robe deceptively, such as after knowingly committing a pārājika.
No idea where Bhantes mind run astray.

My person does not think it's worthy to "beat death dogs", but when seeing some on the way toward decay, it's a matter of duty and care of fellows, children.

Ordaining means to decide to get bond by the Gems to let them disciple one's delutions and improper ways away. It's not about a ticket to go after one's ideas by using Sublime reputations off.

Bhante was not once addressed direct, not once invited to get things fixed in proper sphere... but he prefers to be "pseudo-liberal" and to remain a public symbol of Alajii, association with Alajii and justification of Alajii, in the common modern manner of villages seeking after coupling and freedom to take.

It's a mass, this consumer and hobby monks. Yet Bhante might have left some potential toward the Noble Domain, of which most haven't. But by seeking always gain, presents, fame and travel-checks, he tends to associated with Alajii, here, and there.

But as it has no nourishing soil here and there, it's much better if leaving your kind alone again, as there is hardly any serious with even the conducts of a new gone forth. It's just burdensome and total out of your's sphere, as not wishing and willing to leave home/stand but look for ease livelihoods and trades.

People love to watch fights, get customer by it, wouldn't provide monks proper places, wishing to have them under control.

Bhante is heardly/heartly invited to go after a oneway ticked here, in the land of wonders. And it's all given and not bond into the world.

Whould he be willing to leave home, abound the freedom gained by "rights" trade, become a non-returning beggar, like he once started by still trapped. Whould he like to enjoy the freedom of those having left, the freedom of Dhamma-Vinaya, the Arahats? Neither do they use vehicles, nor shoes, nor anything else that's far off metta, far of not a burden for others, many, even not given.

It's impossible to gain even basic right view when resisting in outer areas, and usually they just waste of their old merits, waste off scared heritage, knowingly or not at all aware.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

Btw. in cases Bhante Thanuttamo prefers given, here (there are also non-public, Bhikkhu only areas):

Image

A more suitable robe, avatar.
Last edited by Johann on Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 1924
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by JamesTheGiant »

Johann, it is best you do not go online. It benefits nobody.
You yourself become agitated, mind stirred up.
Other people lose faith when they see one in robes behaving so.

For the sake of your practise, and for the benefit of all, please renounce the internet for several years, and instead just meditate and study dhamma, as you advise others to do constantly.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 26685
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
JamesTheGiant wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:18 am Johann, it is best you do not go online. It benefits nobody.
You yourself become agitated, mind stirred up.
Other people lose faith when they see one in robes behaving so.

For the sake of your practise, and for the benefit of all, please renounce the internet for several years, and instead just meditate and study dhamma, as you advise others to do constantly.
Agreed... and I would add, please end the charade. Either become a bhikkhu, or disrobe. Stop trying to milk the best of both worlds.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:18 am Johann, it is best you do not go online. It benefits nobody.
You yourself become agitated, mind stirred up.
Other people lose faith when they see one in robes behaving so.

For the sake of your practise, and for the benefit of all, please renounce the internet for several years, and instead just meditate and study dhamma, as you advise others to do constantly.
Faith in what? Alajji? Or disrobing and cheat around? Or maintain a householdermind in robes? Hobbies? Travel-checks? Santa Clauses in robes with children on their chest?
Last edited by Johann on Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:30 am Greetings,
JamesTheGiant wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:18 am Johann, it is best you do not go online. It benefits nobody.
You yourself become agitated, mind stirred up.
Other people lose faith when they see one in robes behaving so.

For the sake of your practise, and for the benefit of all, please renounce the internet for several years, and instead just meditate and study dhamma, as you advise others to do constantly.
Agreed... and I would add, please end the charade. Either become a bhikkhu, or disrobe. Stop trying to milk the best of both worlds.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Again, good householder, if knowing a Sangha able to ordain one gone forth, e.g. them self at least have gone forth, abound householder ways, Atma wouldn't worry to walk 100, 1000 of kilometer.

And good householder has no ideas of being without Nissaya, refuge, milk... he wouldn't fear else more than the real best beyond world.

But again: as the layity so their monks. Even urging to disrobe... of sign up for an ID-card.

Alajji.
santa100
Posts: 5209
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by santa100 »

Johann wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:45 am Again, good householder, if knowing a Sangha able to ordain one gone forth, e.g. them self at least have gone forth, abound householder ways, Atma wouldn't worry to walk 100, 1000 of kilometer.

And good householder has no ideas of being without Nissaya, refuge, milk... he wouldn't fear else more than the real best beyond world.

But again: as the layity so their monks. Even urging to disrobe... of sign up for an ID-card.

Alajji.
Johann, if you don't mind, may I ask what nationality are you? You seem to be pretty passionate about sharing the Buddha's Teaching but you've gotta improve your English first. I don't think I'm the only one here on this forum who finds it's very difficult to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe you should just write your post in your own native language, and hopefully some good householders on this forum who speak the same language as yours can translate it. That would sure help preventing all the confusion and misunderstanding!
User avatar
A. Bhikkhu
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:40 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by A. Bhikkhu »

Johann wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:03 am Btw. in cases Bhante Thanuttamo prefers given, here (there are also non-public, Bhikkhu only areas):
Wouldn't it be better to first ask before revealing the identity of someone that put up a pseudonym? I essentially don't mind, but this is just another instance of tactlessness ... You have to do according to your tendencies, but I myself will withdraw from conversation with you in the future if your discourtesy persists. As far as I can see, you are bordering on being suspended, but I hope you will continue here on this forum nevertheless, having mended your ways. You don't have to renounce your strictness in the sāsana, but merely desist from denigrating and insulting speech.

With mettā!
A. Bhikkhu
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

A. Bhikkhu wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:00 am
Johann wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:03 am Btw. in cases Bhante Thanuttamo prefers given, here (there are also non-public, Bhikkhu only areas):
Wouldn't it be better to first ask before revealing the identity of someone that put up a pseudonym? I essentially don't mind, but this is just another instance of tactlessness ... You have to do according to your tendencies, but I myself will withdraw from conversation with you in the future if your discourtesy persists. As far as I can see, you are bordering on being suspended, but I hope you will continue here on this forum nevertheless, having mended your ways. You don't have to renounce your strictness in the sāsana, but merely desist from denigrating and insulting speech.

With mettā!
A. Bhikkhu
Truly a foolish and householderish reaction. But here yous is, prefers to presist.

It's total improper to run around in disguise and simply watch out costumers for separe like easy going dressed up woman in east European countries luxory hotels enter halls.

And then they claim "you even don't know me".
Nothing to worry that those gone wouldn't be cut off naturally from outer worlds, although it was just because having traced little chances for Bhantes escape. No wish to serve anything else than what's worthy for it.
Last edited by Johann on Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 7795
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Coëmgenu »

:roll:
The many dharmas are alien to existence and nonexistence.
The Āryan is without imputations of existence and nonexistence.
The Āryan, as he is alien to the imputations, cognitions, and views of these two, in this sense is known as "mindless."
The mind of a Buddha is alien to all things:
the skandhas, the dhātus, the āyatanas, the grasper, the grasped.
His pure dharmas are anātmaka, like his unarisen mind.
Thus it is said: "the Great Void of Self-Nature," "the Abyss of Prajñā,"
"the Ocean of Nothing," and "the Eyeless Vision"
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 26685
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:21 am:roll:
Sometimes in the end it's just better to let people beclown themselves, rather than leave any doubt in the matter.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:24 am Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:21 am:roll:
Sometimes in the end it's just better to let people beclown themselves, rather than leave any doubt in the matter.

Metta,
Paul. :)
And who was then the clown, take for examlpe Samahita? Wasn't all told long before. But blind, even when taking place, deny responsibility because only thinking about their gains, without any compassion, without refuge, without faith.

What's a clown in this tradition and perceived as clown outside, are two total different things.

Nothing wrong with clowns for the world.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

Alajji can be understood as "opposing the Vinaya", not willing to let go of what's improper for a Noble One.

On the topic 5 years ago, told what will come up, but ignored:
Open Vihara wrote:
A Bhikkhu, hidding his name wrote:Definitions of alajji and lajji bhikkhus

Dear all,
after a discussion with one of the most strict and stern teachers of vinaya I have met so far I would like to request some help in form of pointing out some definitions and giving some explanations. On the basis of a passage which he read in Thai (it was translated for me) he maintained that it is an offense for a bhikkhu to simply stay with unconscientious (on the word alajji the text was based upon) bhikkhus within the same monastery boundaries, however far-reaching the circumference might be. He argued that any bhikkhu who has fallen into any small offense, which he does not mend, is considered alajji and ground for an offense for any other bhikkhu who stays with him. Now these questions bother me at the moment regarding this:

Where is his mentioned passage to be found in Paali or English (if at all)?
What are the definitions of lajji and alajji regarding bhikkhus? Do they match the mentioned case or are they generally different?
He also mentioned that it is the responsibility of conscientious bhikkhus to point out the offenses of his co-resident bhikkhus, if he neglects it he would incur an offense himself. I see that there is Paacittiya 64 which stipulates so but argued that in the no-offense clause we find the following exemptions:

[bockq]There is no offence if he does not tell, thinking: “There will come to be quarrel or dispute or strife or contention for the Order”; if he does not tell, thinking: “There will come to be a schism in the Order or dissension in the Order”; if he does not tell, thinking: “This one, harsh, rough, will be an obstacle to life or to the Brahma-life”; if he does not tell, not seeing other suitable monks; if he does not tell (though) not desiring to hide (him); if he does not tell, thinking: “It will be evident from his own action”; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.[/bockq]

So, to my mind, if a bhikkhu doesn’t say something because he doesn’t wish the whole day finding faults and talking to other monks (in Pa Auk Mawlamyine, just to give a random example, this would be a full-time job with so many hundreds of monks) that would be no offense because he doesn’t want to hide, is that also your understanding? He said there is somewhere another passage which says one has to confront issues regardlessly but he could not find it? Are you aware of any?

Thank you so much for the assistance!
Mettaa
Yes, Venerable Sir. Blessed if meeting such teacher.

But it's neither correct to place such simply in a group, nor does it make sense to ask those full of offenses.

So it's good to clean that and seek for good places to dwell to get not to much infected. Or is it thought that admitting offenses to those having fallen into the same is a means?

It would be good if the Venerables, having fallen into this offens, make amends.

And, telling lay people about an offense of another Bhikkhu is also an offense... "in Pa Auk Mawlamyine, just to give a random example, this would be a full-time job with so many hundreds of monks" ... if not given to do by the Sangha.

To try to give here a possible graspable solution as well:

Deriving from the intentional aspect and a pattern maybe best visible in The Sets of Fifteen Area on Uposatha.

[bockq]There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careless Bhikkhus, in a careless comunity, but does not recognize them as such, dwells and performes the Uposatha, in such a case there might be no transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careless Bhikkhus, in a careless community, not proven yet he has doubt, dwells and performes the Uposatha nevertheless without claryfication: in such a case there might be a transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careless Bhikkhus, in a careless community, not proven yet he has fear, dwells and performes the Uposatha nevertheless without clarifycation: in such a case there might be a transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careless Bhikkhus, in a careless community, knowingly he dwells and performes the Uposatha nevertheless: in such a case there might be a transgression of strong wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careful Bhikkhus, in a careful community, not proven yet he has doubt, does not dwell and performes the Uposatha with them, without claryfication: in such a case there might be a transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careful Bhikkhus, in a careful community, not proven yet he has fear, does not dwell and performes the Uposatha with them, without claryfication: in such a case there might be a transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.

There might be the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careful Bhikkhus, in a careful community, knowingly, intending torward splitt or out of interest to hide his ways, he does not dwell and performes the Uposatha with them: in such a case there might be a transgression of strong wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.[/bockq]

There is no duty in regard of investigation if there is no reason for one. In cases where doubt or fear arises, seeking clarification is required to be free of mental burdens and free of faults. In cases where one acts clearly (deliberated) against ones knowledge in relation of what is proper, such should be seen as strong wrongdoing. There might be cases where the kammic impact out of current lack of bad conscious, is not assumeable. In those cases it is of cause difficult and depents on possible realisation or trust in supportive other helpers pointing out such. If fully relaying here on them, one might be back to the first case here or the "luckily" perfect one:

[bockq]There is the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careful Bhikkhus, in a carefull community, he dwells there without investigations, with no reasons for doubt or fear, and performs the Uposatha with them: in such a case there might be not transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.[/bockq]

And the perfect, in all aspects, one, the knowingly:

[bockq]There is the case where a Bhikkhu dwells with careful Bhikkhus, in a carefull community, he dwells there having investigated it, with no reasons for doubt or fear, and performs the Uposatha with them: in such a case there is doubtless no transgression of wrongdoing, as far as my person may see.[/bockq]

If wrong investigated, it runs back to the first case, which has no transgression either.

My person hopes that this quick, merely "self-produced" investigation here might be useful to possible formulate it in more pleasing words and unity.

There perfect case also refects the reason for allowing to prove and investigate for example in cases of precepter or teacher, cases of certain giving into dependency.

It also shows that it is of course not a general duty to "play police and investigator" but not neglect duties in regard of ones progress and also not certain duties to put into maintaining (possible "cleaning") community, -ties as well as far as possible.

At least the Vinaya, as far as known and formost seen, gives ways to dwell alone if such as an equal or better companion is not traced. Here is actually the only reasonable place for dwelling like a rhinoceros for one not an Arahat yet.

Even such as a pure desciple was encouraged to pay honor and respect for the Uposatha (if dwelling with gained Dhamma alone).

That being the reason why it is not so easy as one might have thought, to find ones proper community and it's out of that reason, because there are many careless and many who do not see their duties in certain cases, that it grows more and more difficult when the Bhikkhus turn into "common" sense thought, commonal-individualism and even let them encourage by Bhikkunis or femal tending flows and "leadership" through improper attachment to carelessness...

Now keeping in mind the rule of not doing confession with those of equal offence, one might understand the urgency here as it grows fast, very fast, that possibilities run out and no more Uposatha can be held with real effective effect and in line within very short time.

Since it might fill the grap even better, here a partical citation of a Sutta, yet not given and shared in line of Dhamma rendered in common pleasant form:

[dquote="http://forum.sangham.net/index.php/topi ... l#msg13522"]‘‘Katamañca , bhikkhave, saṅgāhabalaṃ? Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, saṅgahavatthūni – dānaṃ, peyyavajjaṃ, atthacariyā, samānattatā. Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, dānānaṃ yadidaṃ dhammadānaṃ. Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa punappunaṃ dhammaṃ deseti. Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, atthacariyānaṃ yadidaṃ assaddhaṃ saddhāsampadāya samādapeti niveseti patiṭṭhāpeti, dussīlaṃ sīlasampadāya… pe… macchariṃ cāgasampadāya…pe… duppaññaṃ paññāsampadāya samādapeti niveseti patiṭṭhāpeti. Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, samānattatānaṃ yadidaṃ sotāpanno sotāpannassa samānatto, sakadāgāmī sakadāgāmissa samānatto, anāgāmī anāgāmissa samānatto, arahā arahato samānatto. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, saṅgāhabalaṃ. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri balāni.[/dquote]

And again here, might all seems nice on the surface, as long as the general tendency of the leader Sujato Bhikkhu and his ship, and the assembling community around does not turn around 180 degrees, ones does good to avoid this place, not increasing faith in those without and possible weaken faith in those who had gained.

And it's like always mentioned for the benefit of each individual and Saṅghaṃ , since that should be the driving side-effect gift from proper conduct torward Nibbana, instead for the world, for the world. The gift of freedom an a possibility for later generations in that way.

As it might be that one might be not able to leave ones bounds: if serious willing to use D&D, it would be good if installing certain membership restricted forums like suggested here, as a basis work to do, if the frame even allows such effort, since it might be not clear how the environment has be gained... difficult... your work to do and burdens till faith might arise. Just "hints"... may one decide wisely out of which intend and for with aim they are still made.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Johann »

https://sangham.net/en/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv01/mv.01.58.khem wrote:Alajjīnissayavatthūni
The Cases of Dependence on/by the Shameless



(Mv.I.72.1) [136] Now at that time the Group-of-six monks were giving dependence to those who were unconscientious. They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Dependence should not be given to one who is unconscientious. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.”

Now at that time monks lived in dependence under those who were unconscientious. In no long time, they also became unconscientious, evil monks. They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“One should not live in dependence under one who is unconscientious. Whoever should (so) live (in dependence): an offense of wrong doing.”

(Mv.I.72.2) Then the thought occurred to the monks, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One that, ‘Dependence should not be given to one who is unconscientious; one should not live in dependence under one who is unconscientious.’ Now, how are we to know is conscientious and who is unconscientious?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow that you wait four or five days until you know how compatible (you are with him).”
In this time dependency isn't limited in merely physical form, but also by ways of writting, internet, net-work depencency. Eg: enter the Bhikkhu area and request dependency first after having taken a careful look around, when resisting in a forum. Depending has a meaning.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 7795
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: On Alajji - matters

Post by Coëmgenu »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:24 am Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:21 am:roll:
Sometimes in the end it's just better to let people beclown themselves, rather than leave any doubt in the matter.

Metta,
Paul. :)
A worldling prey to the defilements rolls his eyes, and the twelve nidānāni are realized in one and the same action. His condescension and arrogance is (1) "ignorance." His decision to roll them was a (2) "saṃskāra." That which he rolled his eye at was of the (3) "cakṣurvijñāna." The sensation of rolling the eye is of the (3) "kāyavijñāna" (etc. for the other four). His mental state at the time of the roll is (4) "nāman." His body which rolls its eye is (4) "rūpa." The text he rolled his eye at was of the external āyatana. His perception of that text was of the (5) "internal āyatana." Their meeting, with subsequent unpleasant (7) "vedanā," was (6) "contact." The experience of the contact was "saṃjñā." His desire to put in his two cents is (8) "craving." The views that made him unreceptive and dismissing to the nonsense that he perceived are (9) "clinging." The bodily action that proceeded forward from volition is (10) "bhava" into the kāmadhātu. The production of the dharma of the eye-roll is (11) "jāti." The transformation during the abiding of the eye-roll is (12) "aging." The end of it is (12) "death."
The many dharmas are alien to existence and nonexistence.
The Āryan is without imputations of existence and nonexistence.
The Āryan, as he is alien to the imputations, cognitions, and views of these two, in this sense is known as "mindless."
The mind of a Buddha is alien to all things:
the skandhas, the dhātus, the āyatanas, the grasper, the grasped.
His pure dharmas are anātmaka, like his unarisen mind.
Thus it is said: "the Great Void of Self-Nature," "the Abyss of Prajñā,"
"the Ocean of Nothing," and "the Eyeless Vision"
Post Reply