Perhaps I shall take them off and walk around like a Jain monk.LastLegend wrote:Wearing robes does not make you monk.
If ya' know whad' I mean...
Perhaps I shall take them off and walk around like a Jain monk.LastLegend wrote:Wearing robes does not make you monk.
This made me LOLIndrajala wrote: Perhaps I shall take them off and walk around like a Jain monk.
If ya' know whad' I mean...
Thanks for your reminders.rory wrote:Last Legend;
please remember the karma you make insulting a monastic! Ven. Indrajala is not hurt by your words, it is you who will pay. You are a Buddhist- practice right speech. if you cannot control yourself, then leave the keyboard.
gassho
rory
It ain't so bad.LastLegend wrote:You would be a naked scholar if you take them off.
These questions are misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.Lotus415 wrote:Indrajala presently staying at a Tibetan monastery? Are you giving lectures there against Amitabha and the existence of Dewachen as well?
Are you teaching them how all of their ceremonies are not pure traditional Buddhism as well?
Yeah, everything I've read from you doesn't lead me to think you doubt the existence of Amitabha. I think you have a valid point when you criticize people devolving the Pure Land path into vegetarianism + bhakti. I just always thought of the Chinese schools as the ones more serious about precepts, more curious about other sutras, and more interested in the Dharma seals. This isn't a criticism of the Japanese schools - it's important to remember the environment they developed in and to note that their teachings aren't so absolute, but forgiving(?) of those in bad situations to give them something to work on so they can at least make some headway along the path.Indrajala wrote:These questions are misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.Lotus415 wrote:Indrajala presently staying at a Tibetan monastery? Are you giving lectures there against Amitabha and the existence of Dewachen as well?
Are you teaching them how all of their ceremonies are not pure traditional Buddhism as well?
It is a teaching of the Daśabhūmika Sūtra and of the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra that mastering worldly knowledge is a part of the bodhisattva's skill-in-means. From Cleary's translation of the former: "In order to mature people, they [bodhisattvas] establish arts and skills--writing, printing, mathematics, medical sciences...Establishing excellent education....Witty in the finest song and dance....Mastering observation of the movements of celestial bodies and earth..." From Thurman's translation of the latter: "He [the bodhisattva Vimalakīrti] understood the mundane and transcendental sciences..."LastLegend wrote:[T]hat's what you think...Indrajala wrote:Gaining knowledge about the world is all part of the bodhisattva ideal.LastLegend wrote: You have so much time on your hand, for a monk. My advice to you is abandon your scholarly knowledge and focus on your own liberation.
Indrajala wrote:Pure Land Buddhism as I often have seen or observed is Devayāna.Nighthawk wrote: This is what I want to know myself but he hasn't answered back yet. The fact that he disagrees with pure land teachings is perfectly fine with me, but the fact that he does this as a Mahayana monk is beyond me.
Dude, I think we make perfect troll-bait...Nighthawk wrote:You should get a gold medal in trolling us pure landers. Oh well. Thanks for the laugh though.
It is a bad karma for criticizing monks? Dear god. I think putting on a robe then proceed to insult all other paths except his own is nothing but ego. He is full of it. Whether he wears a robe or not he is just a human and really nothing more than a prideful person. Maybe monk should strive to bring peace and harmony not provoke anger as it is clearly from his response. I imagine if he has one drop of compassion he would not cause others to be angry so that they may create bad karma. I find that type of monk no more worthy of respect than others...if anything, worth less respect. I am not impress by his ego. I know wiser and more compassionate lay practitioner. Sometimes monks need criticism to maybe help wake them up. Boosting their status as a monk does them no good but fuel the ego. Indrajala probably don't need any more pride as he is overflow with it. My opinion, take it or leave it.rory wrote:Last Legend;
please remember the karma you make insulting a monastic! Ven. Indrajala is not hurt by your words, it is you who will pay. You are a Buddhist- practice right speech. if you cannot control yourself, then leave the keyboard.
gassho
rory
Not to offend, but the Dharma doesn't bring peace? I thought that equanimity, one of the 7 limbs of enlightenment, was one of the greatest forms of peace a sentient being could know - not being attached to outcomes. Secure? Isn't refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, the greatest security there is?rory wrote:Spirit; a monk preaches the Dharma, his job isn't to make people feel happy and secure or peaceful. Good Buddhist monks teach lay people to purify their minds, cut attachments and to escape samsara. Ven. Indrajala is a good Dharma friend.
I am sure there are rules of harmony they must follow. Indrajala lack the skillful means to deliver the dharma. He doesn't preaches dharma, all he preaches is from a Scholar point of view, and if a practice is somehow in conflict with this scholar pov, it is somehow invalid. That is itself a dangerous attachment he has which is very evident in almost all his post as he boasts about his "scholar" knowledge as if that somehow will qualify him superior than previous monks who had taught, practiced, and advocated the Pure Land Path. If scholars has such authority why don't we let them have all the saying how Buddhist should practice, what they need to believe. Let the scholar decides what is real Buddhism and what is not why don't we? Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom comes from dwelling deeply in practice and experience it. That's my opinion. So please spare me the whole him being a monk teaching people this and that, the blind isn't any better leading the blind.rory wrote:Spirit; a monk preaches the Dharma, his job isn't to make people feel happy and secure or peaceful. Good Buddhist monks teach lay people to purify their minds, cut attachments and to escape samsara. Ven. Indrajala is a good Dharma friend.
gassho
Rory
From the interpretation in some Pure Land schools, aspiration for birth in the Pure Land is also a bodhisattva path, we're not really capable to completely do it here, that's why trying to attain enlightenment in samsara is termed the "Path of Sages", it is very difficult for most of us, that's why the Pure Land path offers us the chance to attain buddhahood in the Pure Land, thus it is termed by Nagarjuna as the "Easy Practice". Yet because of its simplicity, it is also difficult to comprehend, thus in the Shorter Sukhavativyuha Sutra (Amitabha Sutra) it is called "the teaching most difficult to believe".longjie wrote:Perhaps Indrajala is right, that people who wish for rebirth in the Pure Land, while neglecting the bodhisattva path in this life, are practicing the Devayana? This is definitely worth talking about, and we should remember that people practicing Pure Land Buddhism these days are not necessarily following the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism as taught in India.
Often Pure Land teachings are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of the 3 sutras that neglect their context within the larger world of Mahayana Buddhism.
Concerning compassion, there is a difference between the Path of Sages and the Pure Land Path.
Compassion in the Path of Sages is to pity, commiserate with, and care for beings. It is extremely difficult, however, to accomplish the saving of others just as one wishes.
Compassion in the Pure Land Path should be understood as first attaining Buddhahood quickly through saying the nembutsu and, with the mind of great love and compassion, freely benefiting sentient beings as one wishes.
However much love and pity we may feel in our present lives, it is hard to save others as we wish; hence, such compassion remains unfulfilled. Only the saying of the nembutsu, then, is the mind of great compassion that is thoroughgoing.
Thus were his words.
(Tannisho 4)
How provocative of you.longjie wrote:Perhaps Indrajala is right, that people who wish for rebirth in the Pure Land, while neglecting the bodhisattva path in this life, are practicing the Devayana? This is definitely worth talking about, and we should remember that people practicing Pure Land Buddhism these days are not necessarily following the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism as taught in India.
Often Pure Land teachings are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of the 3 sutras that neglect their context within the larger world of Mahayana Buddhism.