Its in line with Buddhism to voice out against false views!!
-
"济群法师说：“尤其应该注æ„�的是，说四众过是指犯戒的事，若是四众弟å�有对佛法è§�解上的错误，放心大胆指出，这是没è¯�好说的。”
最著å��的邪师莫过于佛在世时的æ��婆达多，他是ä¸�是出家的法师？我们å�¯ä¸�å�¯ä»¥æ‰¹é©³ä»–的邪说？佛陀当时那些佛弟å�们对æ��婆达多的批评也是犯“说四众过”？也æ�¥çœ‹çœ‹ä½›é™€æ˜¯æ€Žä¹ˆå�šçš„å�§ï¼Œéš¾é�“作为表率的佛陀也犯“说四众过”？"转载自：http://hi.baidu.com/%B0%A2%B1%C8%BC%D7%B5%B1%B8%C2/blog/item/870f02a96c5ae9bbca130c64.html
-
Yes, totally agree with 济群法师说：“尤其应该注æ„�的是，说四众过是指犯戒的事，若是四众弟å�有对佛法è§�解上的错误，放心大胆指出，这是没è¯�好说的。”
I have one big regret... took some time to let go of my guilt. Last time, I commented something about a particular venerable in Singapore, famous case... you all should know who. That was years ago... I realized my mistake days later but too late. I hope nobody will ever comment on another monk/nun 犯戒的事 and simply let the sangha and the law sort it out themselves.
That said, I still go all out at commenting masters and teachers' view and experience.
If you have read my recent posts, and my past posts, you'll see I'm fearless at pointing out incongruency or inadequacy in terms of experience and views even of great masters and teachers... even those who comment that they have attained arhantship (one who passed away recently).
For example, those who are at the I AM stage and think it is final... I will comment. Those who attained substantial non-dual stage and think it is final... I will also comment.
I will point out what is Anatta and Emptiness so that people will have correct understanding. This is not to disparage the teachers - not at all, I still have great appreciation for the teachers and their teachings (and can even recommend their books) but sometimes it is needed to point out the right view so that when you reach those stages, you don't get stuck.
-
According to the unsurpassed literature is referring to “ç ´è§�”.
è�©è�¨æˆ’ä¸ “说四众过戒”，是指ä¸�得说在家ã€�出家众“犯戒”之事，而é�žæŒ‡ä¸�å�¯è¯´“ç ´è§�”之事。所谓“过”，就是过失ã€�ç½ªè¿‡ï¼Œæ³›æŒ‡ä¸€åˆ‡çŠ¯æˆ’è¡Œä¸ºã€‚ç ´æˆ’å�¯æ‡ºæ‚” (so to speak "to err is human")ï¼Œç ´è¦‹ä¸�通懺悔 (so to speak, one's happiness is built on the other disaster)ï¼›ç ´æˆ’æ˜¯å€‹äººè¡Œç‚ºä¸Šçš„é�Žå¤±ï¼Œå�¯ä»¥æ‡ºæ‚”ç³¾æ£ï¼Œç ´è¦‹æ˜¯æ ¹æœ¬æ€�想的錯誤，在見解上無法å†�接å�—佛法真ç�†ï¼Œå°±æ°¸é� 與佛é�“無緣。
Basically referring to 身��边��邪������戒��� - like living beings passed away, it vanished completely without rebirth or always become human or animals form, or died already become heaven beings etc
Amitabha
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes, totally agree with 济群法师说：“尤其应该注æ„�的是，说四众过是指犯戒的事，若是四众弟å�有对佛法è§�解上的错误，放心大胆指出，这是没è¯�好说的。”
I have one big regret... took some time to let go of my guilt. Last time, I commented something about a particular venerable in Singapore, famous case... you all should know who. That was years ago... I realized my mistake days later but too late. I hope nobody will ever comment on another monk/nun 犯戒的事 and simply let the sangha and the law sort it out themselves.
That said, I still go all out at commenting masters and teachers' view and experience.
If you have read my recent posts, and my past posts, you'll see I'm fearless at pointing out incongruency or inadequacy in terms of experience and views even of great masters and teachers... even those who comment that they have attained arhantship (one who passed away recently).
For example, those who are at the I AM stage and think it is final... I will comment. Those who attained substantial non-dual stage and think it is final... I will also comment.
I will point out what is Anatta and Emptiness so that people will have correct understanding. This is not to disparage the teachers - not at all, I still have great appreciation for the teachers and their teachings (and can even recommend their books) but sometimes it is needed to point out the right view so that when you reach those stages, you don't get stuck.
Yeah, I think I made that mistake too. So thank you for your message, 'cause that will remind me that I should be careful not to make that mistake again in the future.
That said, we should be fearless, and vigilant, heeding Ji Qun Dharma Master advise: "若是四众弟å�有对佛法è§�解上的错误，放心大胆指出，这是没è¯�好说的!!!!!"
Thats the spirit. Thats in line with Mahayana Buddhism. Not say facing false view snowballing, we go diam diam keep quiet and dun do any damn thing about it! Glad u are not those who prefer to keep quiet when see false view and all! *Thumbs up!*
-
it is always good to read, analyse, and question any teachings. this must, however, be done with discernment and with personal practice.
every practitioner, including masters, are on different pages of the path. with this, we must acknowledge that the level of understanding and view is different. today my practice is shallow, and i acknowledge that there must be certain views that a certain teacher is highlighting but i do not understand yet.
in pointing out another's wrong view, discernment must be practiced as well. the approach to point out is important, as it will lead to opinions from others. and this creates karma, can be good or bad.
AEN has been making a good point in many of his posts. Experience is different from insight/realization, and insight/realization is also different from 'living the insight'.
the truth of Anatta has to be first realized before the 'real' practice begins. however, the various stages are important as well. if a comment is made directly to the practitioner at a specific stage with the intention to benefit or advance his/her practice it is wholesome.
just a personal view
-
Originally posted by geis:
it is always good to read, analyse, and question any teachings. this must, however, be done with discernment and with personal practice.
every practitioner, including masters, are on different pages of the path. with this, we must acknowledge that the level of understanding and view is different. today my practice is shallow, and i acknowledge that there must be certain views that a certain teacher is highlighting but i do not understand yet.
in pointing out another's wrong view, discernment must be practiced as well. the approach to point out is important, as it will lead to opinions from others. and this creates karma, can be good or bad.
AEN has been making a good point in many of his posts. Experience is different from insight/realization, and insight/realization is also different from 'living the insight'.
the truth of Anatta has to be first realized before the 'real' practice begins. however, the various stages are important as well. if a comment is made directly to the practitioner at a specific stage with the intention to benefit or advance his/her practice it is wholesome.
just a personal view
Buddha had asked us not to blindly accept words from the authority, am I right to say that?
Now lets take an example. When a Dharma Master say thing such as "所有一切宗教里�的创始人 他们全是佛��的化身。" , that to many Buddhist is unheard of!!! It doesn't sound orthodox teaching!!!! So, they voice out their concern. Now, whats wrong with that?
Should we give ALL KIND OF UNORTHODOX TEACHINGS, HERETICAL TEACHINGS benefit of doubt??? Where to draw the line? Practice another ten twenty thirty years then voice out concern on unorthdox, heretical teaching??
I think the best 'policy', best approach is when there's any question on the teachings, just shoot. No need to put some veil over the truth, shroud it with secrecy or something.
-
Originally posted by Zenist69:
Buddha had asked us not to blindly accept words from the authority, am I right to say that?
Now lets take an example. When a Dharma Master say thing such as "所有一切宗教里�的创始人 他们全是佛��的化身。" , that to many Buddhist is unheard of!!! It doesn't sound orthodox teaching!!!! So, they voice out their concern. Now, whats wrong with that?
Should we give ALL KIND OF UNORTHODOX TEACHINGS, HERETICAL TEACHINGS benefit of doubt??? Where to draw the line? Practice another ten twenty thirty years then voice out concern on unorthdox, heretical teaching??
I think the best 'policy', best approach is when there's any question on the teachings, just shoot. No need to put some veil over the truth, shroud it with secrecy or something.
obviously we are on different page, pls re-read my post again.
-
Originally posted by Zenist69:
Buddha had asked us not to blindly accept words from the authority, am I right to say that?
Now lets take an example. When a Dharma Master say thing such as "所有一切宗教里�的创始人 他们全是佛��的化身。" , that to many Buddhist is unheard of!!! It doesn't sound orthodox teaching!!!! So, they voice out their concern. Now, whats wrong with that?
Should we give ALL KIND OF UNORTHODOX TEACHINGS, HERETICAL TEACHINGS benefit of doubt??? Where to draw the line? Practice another ten twenty thirty years then voice out concern on unorthdox, heretical teaching??
I think the best 'policy', best approach is when there's any question on the teachings, just shoot. No need to put some veil over the truth, shroud it with secrecy or something.
"佛��的化身"
how does one understand this bit?
in just the words alone, there's one meaning.
in context of Anatta, there's one meaning.
in context of Emptiness of phenomena, there's one meaning.
what meaning does it manifest in our personal practice?
p/s: im talking about practice in general, and feedback on personal practice. nothing to do with what any Masters are saying.
-
Originally posted by geis:
obviously we are on different page, pls re-read my post again.
no need to. U noe what I am getting it.
-
Originally posted by geis:
"佛��的化身"
how does one understand this bit?
in just the words alone, there's one meaning.
in context of Anatta, there's one meaning.
in context of Emptiness of phenomena, there's one meaning.
what meaning does it manifest in our personal practice?
p/s: im talking about practice in general, and feedback on personal practice. nothing to do with what any Masters are saying.
ç›´ä¸‹æ— å¿ƒ
-
Originally posted by Zenist69:
no need to. U noe what I am getting it.
who is it that is getting it? and what is it that is gotten?
-
Even the most spiritual man on earth can do whatever he likes.What's wrong with Buddhist monks?If we restrict a person too much, it will be no good.
-
Btw, pointing out something that you disagree doesn't mean you need to over emphasize it either.
For me, I just point it out and let it be. Whether people accept it is their own business... up to their own discernment.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Btw, pointing out something that you disagree doesn't mean you need to over emphasize it either.
For me, I just point it out and let it be. Whether people accept it is their own business... up to their own discernment.
Why dun u tell it to the MJK supporters? It take two hands to clap (conventional way of clapping that is.)
-
Originally posted by Zenist69:
Why dun u tell it to the MJK supporters? It take two hands to clap (conventional way of clapping that is.)
MJK's teachings are beyond Buddhism into universalism.So his teachings are the ultimate truths which support other religions.
-
Originally posted by Rockfan:
MJK's teachings are beyond Buddhism into universalism.So his teachings are the ultimate truths which support other religions.
Buddhism is the ultimate truth （最究竟）。
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Buddhism is the ultimate truth （最究竟）。
I can say I agree with you on this after having attended church for ten years and later getting involved in a Universalist-type religion for yet another decade. In these twenty years, I felt like I was searching and searching for something but never quite finding it.
To borrow a pretty cool statement recently posted by another forum member, "most of us live our lives foolishly seeking consolations of love than enlightenment." That was indeed what I was seeking. Seeking love from the divine, and that ultimately disappointed.
It wasn't until I finally realized the futility in that, accepted the four noble truths and took a much more serious look at Buddhism did I come to see that what was needed to liberate me was right under my nose all along.
For many years, even though in a Universalist religion, I chose to focus more on the concepts of the divine than the concepts of seeking truth. Buddhism really is the most 究竟 as you say. It examines the human condition uncompromisingly, yet compassionately give methods and practices out of that misery.
-
Universalism cannot be classified as "false views". All religions have some truths in them, along with some distortions. When you have the belief that your "religion" is the only way, then you no different from a fundamentalist -> the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book is completely true.
As for whether need to voice out against false views, it is depends more on the individual who is going to receive the comments.
Personally, I do not mind people telling me that I have "false views" as I do not have a fixed belief anyway.
However, if you are to tell a closed-minded person that he/she has "false views", he/she may reject 100% of what you said and may even get angry.
some quote below:In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.
-
Originally posted by SoulDivine:
Universalism cannot be classified as "false views". All religions have some truths in them, along with some distortions. When you have the belief that your "religion" is the only way, then you no different from a fundamentalist -> the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book is completely true.
As for whether need to voice out against false views, it is depends more on the individual who is going to receive the comments.
Personally, I do not mind people telling me that I have "false views" as I do not have a fixed belief anyway.
However, if you are to tell a closed-minded person that he/she has "false views", he/she may reject 100% of what you said and may even get angry.
some quote below:Hey good morning SoulDivine :)
Certainly, we're not saying that Buddhism is the only way. The word used is "究竟", which in this context may be understood more as "thorough, complete, exhaustive".
That being said, "a Buddhist cannot agree that 'all religions are essentially expressions of the same inner reality'. Sometimes this stance is urged on Buddhists with the coercive pressure of a theological correctness, but Buddhism does not even regard itself as 'an expression of reality'. It sees its own teachings and practices as means of creating conditions which conduce to the perception of reality and Buddhists will judge other teachings by the same criterion. Where there are differences of belief and practice Buddhists need to ask (in the ample spirit of friendly dialogue and tolerance) whether other religions, philosophies and spiritual paths are based, ultimately on one of the two essential 'wrong views': nihilism and eternalism."
web source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/new_age.html
-
Originally posted by SoulDivine:
some quote below:
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.
Thanks so much for those verses on Right Speech!
More here, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/
-
False views, right views ? very subjective.
It is not in line with the essence of Buddhism to argue on such subjective viewpoints.
It doesn't let you understand what is the purpose of a human life.
-
Originally posted by Wiser:
False views, right views ? very subjective.
It is not in line with the essence of Buddhism to argue on such subjective viewpoints.
It doesn't let you understand what is the purpose of a human life.
--- 佛教的的确确有所谓的æ£è§�。佛法就是è¦�ç ´é‚ªæ˜¾æ£ã€‚怎么å�¯ä»¥è½»çŽ‡åœ°è¯´é‚£æ˜¯äº›ä¸»è§‚æ„�识？？
--- 佛教的æ£çŸ¥æ£è§�å°±é�“出了人生的æ„�义。没有佛教的æ£è§�，怎么知é�“人生æ„�义？？有什么好辩的？
--- 碰到有人刻æ„�æ‰æ›²ä½›æ³•ï¼Œå®£æ‰¬äº›é‚ªçŸ¥é‚ªè§�，身为佛弟å�就应挺身而出维护佛法。大乘佛教的精神是自觉觉他。而ä¸�是一味的自顾自己的æˆ�é�“与å�¦ã€‚
-
there is definitely wrong and right view according to buddha. right view is most impt and is the first of the eight fold path to enlightenment. the buddha teach that not only is view most impt but it directly affects our afterlife. ppl who holds view of annihalation, no rebirth, novkarma, is more in danger of falling into lower realms after death. those who hold another false view, that there is an eternal soul, or eternal god, are of less danger and may reborn in higher realms or even heaven. most religions aim and stop here. only in buddhism we yeach no soul, no self, depedent oeigination, emptiness. this leads to liberation
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
there is definitely wrong and right view according to buddha. right view is most impt and is the first of the eight fold path to enlightenment.
the buddha teach that not only is view most impt but it directly affects our afterlife. ppl who holds view of annihalation, no rebirth, novkarma, is more in danger of falling into lower realms after death.
those who hold another false view, that there is an eternal soul, or eternal god, are of less danger and may reborn in higher realms or even heaven. most religions aim and stop here.only in buddhism we yeach no soul, no self, depedent oeigination, emptiness. this leads to liberation
Eternalism and Nihilism
The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.
The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.
Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.
Throughout the Buddha's long period of teaching the Dhamma to His followers, He actively discouraged speculative arguments. During the 5th century B.C. India was a veritable hive of intellectual activity where scholars, yogis, philosophers, kings and even ordinary householders were constantly engaged in the philosophical arguments pertaining to human existence. Some of these were either ridiculously trivial or totally irrelevant. Some people wasted valuable time arguing at great length about all manner of subjects. They were far more concerned about proving their powers in mental gymnastics than seeking genuine solutions to the problems that beset humanity. (In the 18th century Jonathan Swift satirized a similar pastime in England when he showed the Lilliputians in 'Gulliver's Travels' waging a war to decide whether an egg should be broken on its sharp end or its broad end).
The Buddha also refused to get involved in speculations regarding the universe. He stated very clearly that the problem facing mankind is not in his past or his future but in the immediate present. Knowledge about Eternalism or Nihilism can in no way help man to break the present fetters which bind him to existence and which are the source of all his feelings of discontent which arise from his inability to completely satisfy his cravings. The Buddha stated that before one can begin to tread the path which leads to Nibbana one must have Right View. Only when one knows clearly what one is seeking will one be able to attain it.
- excerpted from "What Buddhists Believe" by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera
-
Originally posted by realization:
Hey good morning SoulDivine :)
Certainly, we're not saying that Buddhism is the only way. The word used is "究竟", which in this context may be understood more as "thorough, complete, exhaustive".
That being said, "a Buddhist cannot agree that 'all religions are essentially expressions of the same inner reality'. Sometimes this stance is urged on Buddhists with the coercive pressure of a theological correctness, but Buddhism does not even regard itself as 'an expression of reality'. It sees its own teachings and practices as means of creating conditions which conduce to the perception of reality and Buddhists will judge other teachings by the same criterion. Where there are differences of belief and practice Buddhists need to ask (in the ample spirit of friendly dialogue and tolerance) whether other religions, philosophies and spiritual paths are based, ultimately on one of the two essential 'wrong views': nihilism and eternalism."
web source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/new_age.html
Yeah yeah, this is precisely what I meant by "究竟" (complete and thorough). Most of the religion preach only 2 realms (heaven and hell) but Buddhism says there are 6 realms. Ghost realm is one of the proven one. I said proven due to my personal experience and many others experiences.