Association with non-Theravadins is hindersome?

[Dhammapardon]

Good day,

A question comes to mind with aid of a recent post on another thread. It's a thought that's been circling for some time and I'd like the input of those here regarding it.

From another thread:

This is the result of association with nontheravādins.
In the Dhammapadaṃ there is a story of a bhikkhu who
befriended with (bhikkhu) Devadatta's disciple, and then
The Buddho rebuked this association. THOSE WHOSE
WISDOM are (VERY) WEAK, WILL THINK, "Be friends with
anyone, that's okay. Why did The Buddho forbid it?"

Ajātasattu because of wrong association, he failure to enter
the stream. Then the first story in Petavatthu too, FAILED TO
ACHIEVE ARAHAT because of wrong association, etc.


It's okay to be friends with nontheravādins, but
not in the case of religion. Why? Their views can
be contagious!

As someone striving for sotapanna-hood in this very life while still living in the city and having a job and holding on to some family obligations, and having a life-long difficulty building lasting relationships with others, I have made some loose friendships among people of Christianity, Islam, Zen, Mahayana, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic,... On occasion I'm invited to participate more fully with these friends and their respective groups but am hesitant for various reasons. I would like to go to Church with a friend and participate in their group but don't really have that faith even though I think some in-person community might be good for me.

Am I risking something by involving myself with that group and building deeper relationships with them?
Am I leaning into an unhealthy desire for building relationships? I can sense a sort of self-made yearning but can't see it clearly enough.
Thanks and be well.

[TRobinson465]

Not associating with fools is a good idea. But there are foolish Theravadins and wise non-theravadins. Keep the company of good people with wholesome habits. As long as they arent in your face about thier non-theravadin religious beliefs theres very little risk of you adopting thier ideas.

[Gwi II]

Good day,

A question comes to mind with aid of a recent post on another thread. It's a thought that's been circling for some time and I'd like the input of those here regarding it.

From another thread:

This is the result of association with nontheravādins.
In the Dhammapadaṃ there is a story of a bhikkhu who
befriended with (bhikkhu) Devadatta's disciple, and then
The Buddho rebuked this association. THOSE WHOSE
WISDOM are (VERY) WEAK, WILL THINK, "Be friends with
anyone, that's okay. Why did The Buddho forbid it?"

Ajātasattu because of wrong association, he failure to enter
the stream. Then the first story in Petavatthu too, FAILED TO
ACHIEVE ARAHAT because of wrong association, etc.


It's okay to be friends with nontheravādins, but
not in the case of religion. Why? Their views can
be contagious!

As someone striving for sotapanna-hood in this very life while still living in the city and having a job and holding on to some family obligations, and having a life-long difficulty building lasting relationships with others, I have made some loose friendships among people of Christianity, Islam, Zen, Mahayana, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic,... On occasion I'm invited to participate more fully with these friends and their respective groups but am hesitant for various reasons. I would like to go to Church with a friend and participate in their group but don't really have that faith even though I think some in-person community might be good for me.

Am I risking something by involving myself with that group and building deeper relationships with them?
Am I leaning into an unhealthy desire for building relationships? I can sense a sort of self-made yearning but can't see it clearly enough.
Thanks and be well.

Why dunt Mr. Dhammapardon tag me?

Nontheravādins = sects in Buddhism.
(strong opinion: as long as a sect within Buddhism
believes in the Four Noble Truths, he/she is a buddhist).

Nonbuddhis = (example) Islam, Christian, Hinduism, dll.


Sotāpanno only in Theravādin, if he is in nontheravādins,
he/she will back to Theravādo (sooner or later). That is why
Theravādin is called PURE, (means) ORTHODOX (ORIGINAL).


* MN 11 can be used to refute the nontheravādins.
(This is a "small roar").
* Kathāvatthu said "Theravādin"



What do you think? Is it possible for a Sotāpanno
in Theravādo, to 'fall" into another sectc, for example,
e-buddh, Jayanti, and so on? The answer is:
POSSIBLE although sooner or later he/she will
back to Theravādo.

Well, now imagine if he was a NON-STREAM ENTERER.
So, stay away from nontheravādins, in the case of religion.
Other things as a friend is okay.



The ancient Theravādin bhikkhus were
LAZY TO TALK TO NONTHERAVĀDINS.

[Eko Care]

I would like to go to Church with a friend and participate in their group but don't really have that faith even though I think some in-person community might be good for me.

This is enough. God bless you. Thank you.

This is the result of association with nontheravādins. In the Dhammapadaṃ there is a story of a bhikkhu who befriended with (bhikkhu) Devadatta's disciple, and then The Buddho rebuked this association. THOSE WHOSE WISDOM are (VERY) WEAK, WILL THINK, "Be friends with anyone, that's okay. Why did The Buddho forbid it?"

(strong opinion: as long as a sect within Buddhism believes in the Four Noble Truths, he/she is a buddhist).
Nonbuddhist = (example) Islam, Christian, Hinduism, dll.

The four noble truths of Non-theravadins are not the real four noble truths. They follow different theory but using same wording.

Eg: The 3rd Noble Truth of Eternalist(like Mahayana) and Semi-eternalist (like ThaiForest) Non-theravadins is different than real 3rd Noble Truth. (And all the Four Noble Truths are different in this way.)

[Ceisiwr]

In ancient times monks and nuns of different traditions would live together in the same monastery. Some of the more interesting and thoughtful discussions I’ve had have been with non-Theravadin Buddhists.

[Eko Care]

In ancient times monks and nuns of different traditions would live together in the same monastery.

Not in the Buddha's time.

Some of the more interesting and thoughtful discussions I’ve had have been with non-Theravadin Buddhists.

It indicates the tendency of the person, at least partially.

[Ceisiwr]

Not in the Buddha's time.

No, not then but we don’t live in that time.

It indicates the tendency of the person, at least partially.

Sure. I’m open to talking to others with a different point of view.

[Eko Care]

I’m open to talking to others with a different point of view.

Is it like this?

“Good, good, householder! That’s how you should legitimately and completely refute those foolish men from time to time.”
...
Then, not long after Anāthapiṇḍika had left, the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants, even a mendicant who has ordained for a hundred years in this teaching and training would legitimately and completely refute those wanderers of other religions just as the householder Anāthapiṇḍika did.”
AN10.93: What Is Your View?

[Ceisiwr]

I’m open to talking to others with a different point of view.

Is it like this?

“Good, good, householder! That’s how you should legitimately and completely refute those foolish men from time to time.”
...
Then, not long after Anāthapiṇḍika had left, the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants, even a mendicant who has ordained for a hundred years in this teaching and training would legitimately and completely refute those wanderers of other religions just as the householder Anāthapiṇḍika did.”
AN10.93: What Is Your View?

Mostly these days I try to just have conversations, but of course I do put forward my view and why I think another exegesis or whatever is mistaken as well, or when i think it’s not. Interesting though you have chosen a sutta that emphasises not clinging to any view, even dependent origination.

[Eko Care]

but of course I do put forward my view and why I think another exegesis or whatever is mistaken as well, or when i think it’s not.

In the sense you mentioned, even the hardline extremists can be considered "Open".

a sutta that emphasises not clinging to any view, even dependent origination.

I guess you did not mean "Throwing the boat away" before crossing the river.

[dharmacorps]

Thervadin is a label. Someone can hold the label of thervadin but be a fool. Likewise, someone of another faith, or no faith could be a good person and praiseworthy. Associating with the wise is best, regardless of the label applied.

[Ceisiwr]

In the sense you mentioned, even the hardline extremists can be considered "Open".

I don’t know what you mean there.

I guess you did not mean "Throwing the boat away" before crossing the river.

Not at all. We have to rely on views to give up all views, but getting there takes a long time for most of us. It comes naturally too, rather than being some intellectual exercise. In the mean time we can say “my faith is thus” but to say “Only this is true, all else is worthless” is unwise. It might actually turn out to be otherwise, and of course being so dogmatic and sectarian comes with a lot of mental dukkha, as it comes from a place of grasping. You, of course, have faith in Classical Theravada. That’s perfectly fine. Strongly denouncing others though on the basis of that is, based on my understanding of the Dhamma, as I say, unwise.

[Eko Care]

You, of course, have faith in Classical Theravada. That’s perfectly fine. Strongly denouncing others though on the basis of that is, based on my understanding of the Dhamma, as I say, unwise.

Do you say samething to Venerable Moggaliputtatissa for example?

[Ceisiwr]

You, of course, have faith in Classical Theravada. That’s perfectly fine. Strongly denouncing others though on the basis of that is, based on my understanding of the Dhamma, as I say, unwise.

Do you say samething to Venerable Moggaliputtatissa for example?

That would be a bit difficult, but I’m not saying awakened people can’t say “this is the way”. You and I though, I assume, aren’t awakened. I think the Buddha would prefer it for us, in this time of multiple views of the Dhamma (and indeed beyond) to adopt the very same attitude of “my faith is thus” rather than have the definite attitude of “only this is true, all else is worthless”. It is a peculiar thing when people bring up the Buddha being critical, using that as a justification for themselves to be so. It’s peculiar, to me, as it suggests the person thinks they are comparable to a fully awakened Buddha when, no doubt, they are just a worldly person still fumbling in the dark.

So, for me I don’t see any issue in talking to people with other views. Who knows, I might learn something. I have, in fact.

“In a dark place we find ourselves, and a little more knowledge lights our way.” Grand Master Yoda

[mikenz66]

It is a peculiar thing when people bring up the Buddha being critical, using that as a justification for themselves to be so. It’s peculiar, to me, as it suggests the person thinks they are comparable to a fully awakened Buddha when, no doubt, they are just a worldly person still fumbling in the dark.

Mike