I've been so wrong/pure lands

[Coëmgenu]

Sure, if you have your sexual organs removed, come out of the closet, become impotent or sterile, etc.

so pandaka is a generic term for any m,ale that is not hetero sexual?
eunuchs born or dismembered are pandakas as well?

i find this repulsive...the teaching is flawed and i would like to know where you gug this stuff up and why are you teaching it?

There are five kinds of paṇḍakas; intersexed people, impotent men, homosexuals, eunuchs, and men who can only become aroused by watching others engaged in sexual intercourse.

The Lotus Sūtra states, in chapter 14 (chapter 13 in the Sanskrit and Tibetan recensions):

na ca paṇḍakasya dharmaṃ deśayati, na ca tena sārdhaṃ saṃstavaṃ karoti

Do not teach Dharma to paṇḍakas, nor should one associate with them.

It says also:

strīpaṇḍakāśca ye sattvāḥ saṃstavaṃ tairvivarjayet|

Avoid associating with female and paṇḍaka sentient beings.

What about the paṇḍaka variant from the Pāli commentaries who is only a paṇḍaka when the moon is waning, pakkhapaṇḍaka? Where does this tradition of paṇḍaka-variant classification come from?

[CedarTree]

And female sentient beings..... Oh man....... The road to Buddhahood is going to be very very long.

Sure, if you have your sexual organs removed, come out of the closet, become impotent or sterile, etc.

so pandaka is a generic term for any m,ale that is not hetero sexual?
eunuchs born or dismembered are pandakas as well?

i find this repulsive...the teaching is flawed and i would like to know where you gug this stuff up and why are you teaching it?

There are five kinds of paṇḍakas; intersexed people, impotent men, homosexuals, eunuchs, and men who can only become aroused by watching others engaged in sexual intercourse.

The Lotus Sūtra states, in chapter 14 (chapter 13 in the Sanskrit and Tibetan recensions):

na ca paṇḍakasya dharmaṃ deśayati, na ca tena sārdhaṃ saṃstavaṃ karoti

Do not teach Dharma to paṇḍakas, nor should one associate with them.

It says also:

strīpaṇḍakāśca ye sattvāḥ saṃstavaṃ tairvivarjayet|

Avoid associating with female and paṇḍaka sentient beings.

[CedarTree]

I am familiar with the pali commentaries around the vinaya to some extent and I don't remember this.

Pandaka is clearly defined as what Malcolm stated. Nagas are also not suppose to be ordained if I remember it.

so pandaka is a generic term for any m,ale that is not hetero sexual?
eunuchs born or dismembered are pandakas as well?

i find this repulsive...the teaching is flawed and i would like to know where you gug this stuff up and why are you teaching it?

There are five kinds of paṇḍakas; intersexed people, impotent men, homosexuals, eunuchs, and men who can only become aroused by watching others engaged in sexual intercourse.

The Lotus Sūtra states, in chapter 14 (chapter 13 in the Sanskrit and Tibetan recensions):

na ca paṇḍakasya dharmaṃ deśayati, na ca tena sārdhaṃ saṃstavaṃ karoti

Do not teach Dharma to paṇḍakas, nor should one associate with them.

It says also:

strīpaṇḍakāśca ye sattvāḥ saṃstavaṃ tairvivarjayet|

Avoid associating with female and paṇḍaka sentient beings.

What about the paṇḍaka variant from the Pāli commentaries who is only a paṇḍaka when the moon is waning, pakkhapaṇḍaka? Where does this tradition of paṇḍaka-variant classification come from?

[Malcolm]

The instruction is for the mahasattva-bodhisattva to avoid pretty much anyone who might distract them from the path. What Malcolm is doing here is called trolling.

It is a bit strange that bodhisattva mahāsattvas should be enjoined from associating with anyone, since presumably they are bodhisattvas on the pure stages who have realized patience towards the non-arising of phenomena and can without a second thought offer their eyes or even their heads to those in need. How could such a highly realized being be distracted by anything?

[Queequeg]

The instruction is for the mahasattva-bodhisattva to avoid pretty much anyone who might distract them from the path. What Malcolm is doing here is called trolling.

It is a bit strange that bodhisattva mahāsattvas should be enjoined from associating with anyone, since presumably they are bodhisattvas on the pure stages who have realized patience towards the non-arising of phenomena and can without a second thought offer their eyes or even their heads to those in need. How could such a highly realized being be distracted by anything?

You're assuming these are bodhisattvas who have advanced that far.

[Malcolm]

The instruction is for the mahasattva-bodhisattva to avoid pretty much anyone who might distract them from the path. What Malcolm is doing here is called trolling.

It is a bit strange that bodhisattva mahāsattvas should be enjoined from associating with anyone, since presumably they are bodhisattvas on the pure stages who have realized patience towards the non-arising of phenomena and can without a second thought offer their eyes or even their heads to those in need. How could such a highly realized being be distracted by anything?

You're assuming these are bodhisattvas who have advanced that far.

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

[Coëmgenu]

Can one born as man become paṇḍaka in same lifetime?

Sure, if you have your sexual organs removed, come out of the closet, become impotent or sterile, etc.

so pandaka is a generic term for any m,ale that is not hetero sexual?
eunuchs born or dismembered are pandakas as well?

i find this repulsive...the teaching is flawed and i would like to know where you gug this stuff up and why are you teaching it?

I can only speak to my own experience, but personally, I am rarely surprised when aversion to homosexuals, transexuals, even demographics as innocuous as heterosexual transverstites, creeps into organized religions. Let's face it, most religions are homophobic (etc.), though religions differ in their precise relations with, and often objections to, homosexuality et al., and to simply say that "religions are homophobic (etc. i.e. transphobic & whatnot)" does not acknowledge this difference within religions.

For instance, most Buddhisms are anti-sex, generally and crudely speaking. Most religions are actually, in one way or another, anti-sex, for good reasons or bad (what better way to control people than control their access to sexual pleasure?). Heterosexual sex gets a pass because it is quite literally necessary for the survival of the species and care for the elderly as they age. Homosexual sex is simply an expression of relation between two people, be it predominantly sexual or be it predominantly romantic. In a religion where one is supposed to be shedding attachments to worldly things, other people included, they are not going to look particularly favourably on relationships that are not conceived of as absolutely "necessary".

Obviously this does not apply to all Buddhisms, and different Buddhisms address with friction differently. Renunciant Buddhisms, for instance, IMO are less likely to be open to paṇḍaka etc.

For instance, the same section has a great deal of prohibitions against various manners and settings of/for having interactions with women in.

Ven Zhiyi, in one of his more interesting moments, actually contradicts the Lotus Sutra in his commentary on the Lotus Sutra, and says that the textus receptus is wrong, indirectly. That quote is in Rory's signature.

[Queequeg]

What about the paṇḍaka variant from the Pāli commentaries who is only a paṇḍaka when the moon is waning, pakkhapaṇḍaka? Where does this tradition of paṇḍaka-variant classification come from?

These days people call that the Down Low.

[CedarTree]

Sure, if you have your sexual organs removed, come out of the closet, become impotent or sterile, etc.

so pandaka is a generic term for any m,ale that is not hetero sexual?
eunuchs born or dismembered are pandakas as well?

i find this repulsive...the teaching is flawed and i would like to know where you gug this stuff up and why are you teaching it?

I can only speak to my own experience, but personally, I am rarely surprised when aversion to homosexuals, transexuals, even demographics as innocuous as heterosexual transverstites, creeps into organized religions. Let's face it, most religions are homophobic (etc.), though religions differ in their precise relations with, and often objections to, homosexuality et al., and to simply say that "religions are homophobic" does not acknowledge this difference within religions.

For instance, most Buddhisms are anti-sex, generally and crudely speaking. Most religions are actually, in one way or another, anti-sex, for good reasons or bad (what better way to control people than control their access to sexual pleasure?). Heterosexual sex gets a pass because it is quite literally necessary for the survival of the species and care for the elderly as they age. Homosexual sex is simply an expression of relation between two people, be it predominantly sexual or be it predominantly romantic. In a religion where one is supposed to be shedding attachments to worldly things, other people included, they are not going to look particularly favourably on relationships that are not conceived of as absolutely "necessary".

For instance, the same section has a great deal of prohibitions against various manners and settings of/for having interactions with women in.

Ven Zhiyi, in one of his more interesting moments, actually contradicts the Lotus Sutra in his commentary on the Lotus Sutra, and says that the textus receptus is wrong, indirectly. That quote is in Rory's signature.

Bingo

[Queequeg]

It is a bit strange that bodhisattva mahāsattvas should be enjoined from associating with anyone, since presumably they are bodhisattvas on the pure stages who have realized patience towards the non-arising of phenomena and can without a second thought offer their eyes or even their heads to those in need. How could such a highly realized being be distracted by anything?

You're assuming these are bodhisattvas who have advanced that far.

It is basic to the definition of a bodhisattva mahāsattva.

What conclusion ought be drawn?

[CedarTree]

It's all just religious writings and we need to relax a bit and not allow texts to get us more lost and confused.

Least we become ISIS.......

You're assuming these are bodhisattvas who have advanced that far.

It is basic to the definition of a bodhisattva mahāsattva.

What conclusion ought be drawn?

[Queequeg]

Is that trolling, or discussion?

Sometimes its hard to tell, but if issues are posed in a misleading manner, then that tends to the conclusion that its trolling.

[Malcolm]

You're assuming these are bodhisattvas who have advanced that far.

It is basic to the definition of a bodhisattva mahāsattva.

What conclusion ought be drawn?

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

The only conclusion I can draw is that these sentiments are reflective of the bias of the person who wrote the text down.

[Losal Samten]

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

The only conclusion I can draw is that these sentiments are reflective of the bias of the person who wrote the text down.

Arya bodhisattvas are those on any bhumi, and mahasattvas are those on the pure bhumis, no?

[DGA]

OK, I found the passage that illarraza was referring to in Chapter 15. It's early on in the chapter in The Threefold Lotus Sutra (Bunno Kato, trans.), on page 239.

This is the chapter that starts with a great earthquake, and the emergence of a multitude of bodhisattva-mahasattvas. Shakyamuni Buddha is greeted as follows:

Thereupon the four great bodhisattvas spoke thus in verse:

"Is the World-Honored One at ease,
With few ailments and few troubles?
In instructing all the living beings,
Is he free from weariness?
And are all the living
Readily accepting his teaching?
Do they cause the World-honored One
Not to get tired?"

Then the World-honored One, in the great assembly of the bodhisattvas, spoke thus: "Sot it is, so it is, my good sons! The Tathagata is at ease, with few ailments and few troubles. These beings are easy to transform and I am free from weariness. Wherefore? Because all these beings for generations of constantly received my instruction and worshiped and honored the former buddhas, cultivating roots of goodness..."

I have some other thoughts about this passage that may be appropriate for a different thread. For now, I have two thoughts.

This looks like a conventional exchange of niceties rather than a doctrinal discussion.

I'm not in a position to evaluate the translation of this passage. Does the English correspond to Kumarajiva's Chinese? to the Sanskrit?

[Queequeg]

It is basic to the definition of a bodhisattva mahāsattva.

What conclusion ought be drawn?

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

The only conclusion I can draw is that these sentiments are reflective of the bias of the person who wrote the text down.

I watched a youtube movie about a yogi... not sure where. Maybe Ladakh? Anyway, he remarked, hundreds of thousands of prostrations are easy compared to maintaining single pointed focus. Medals of Honor were given out posthumously on a regular basis in WWI and WWII to men who jumped on grenades to save their fellows. I seriously doubt there were many practicing Buddhists, let alone bodhisattvas among those recipients. I think you have it backwards about the difficulty of maintaining concentration.

[DGA]

Is that trolling, or discussion?

Sometimes its hard to tell, but if issues are posed in a misleading manner, then that tends to the conclusion that its trolling.

Yes, it's a tricky needle to thread.

Speaking for myself only, I don't have the capacity to judge the intentions or the minds of others based on their posts to a forum. Maybe others do?

[Malcolm]

What conclusion ought be drawn?

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

The only conclusion I can draw is that these sentiments are reflective of the bias of the person who wrote the text down.

I watched a youtube movie about a yogi... not sure where. Maybe Ladakh? Anyway, he remarked, hundreds of thousands of prostrations are easy compared to maintaining single pointed focus. Medals of Honor were given out posthumously on a regular basis in WWI and WWII to men who jumped on grenades to save their fellows. I seriously doubt there were many practicing Buddhists, let alone bodhisattvas among those recipients. I think you have it backwards about the difficulty of maintaining concentration.

If you have realized emptiness, you have no problem maintaining concentration, the former requires the latter.

[Queequeg]

What conclusion ought be drawn?

My bad —— a bodhisattva mahāsattva is any bodhisattva on the stages -- but still my point stands, if one is able to offer one's eyes or limbs sentient beings, how could one possibly be distracted on the path since one has now realized emptiness?

The only conclusion I can draw is that these sentiments are reflective of the bias of the person who wrote the text down.

I watched a youtube movie about a yogi... not sure where. Maybe Ladakh? Anyway, he remarked, hundreds of thousands of prostrations are easy compared to maintaining single pointed focus. Medals of Honor were given out posthumously on a regular basis in WWI and WWII to men who jumped on grenades to save their fellows. I seriously doubt there were many practicing Buddhists, let alone bodhisattvas among those recipients. I think you have it backwards about the difficulty of maintaining concentration.

Illustrating this point, I just recalled the story of Sariputra who was on the verge of Buddhahood in the past such that when a brahmin asked him for his eye, he plucked it out and gave it to him. When the brahmin tossed the eye away in disgust, Sariputra lost his concentration, got angry, and wiped out the stores of good karma. Concentration is hard - that's why even though we've given our lives for family, friends and rulers more times than we can count, we're still here.

[CedarTree]

Is that trolling, or discussion?

Sometimes its hard to tell, but if issues are posed in a misleading manner, then that tends to the conclusion that its trolling.

Yes, it's a tricky needle to thread.

Speaking for myself only, I don't have the capacity to judge the intentions or the minds of others based on their posts to a forum. Maybe others do?

I didn't want to brag....