[BakerBonce]

Is there such a thing as in Buddhism?

Do you at 'heretics'?

[tsamprasxx]

Is there such a thing as in Buddhism?

You decide:
Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.

They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."




7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. [37] Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."









Do you at 'heretics'?


The people in the picture are not Buddhists. Killing people is seen as wrong action in Buddhism, did you know?

[PRengine]

Any others?

Oh ya before I forget to elaborate, the 'guns' are not literal ones (at least in this thread): it can be any manifestation of one's body, speech and mind used to harm or denigrate, via subtle or direct methods, be it online or in real life, on those who think differently from ourselves (though there are those who opine that Buddhist history is not immune from bloodshed, mostly motivated by human politics...but that's another topic). The nuns are a metaphor for 'self righteous' attitudes.

P.S No..I have no issues with Catholic nuns, they're lovely people lol...just could not find another apt pic...if you do, let me know...

[juyrett]

Any others?

Was there something uncomfortable for you about the one response you did receive?

[i]Oh ya before I forget to elaborate, the 'guns' are not literal ones (at least in this thread): it can be any manifestation of one's body, speech and mind used to harm or denigrate, via subtle or direct methods, be it online or in real life, on those who think differently from ourselves (though there are those who opine that Buddhist history is not immune from bloodshed, mostly motivated by human politics...but that's another topic). The nuns are a metaphor for 'self righteous' attitudes. Wow, is that statement ever loaded, as was the OP question.

I love this Nambillings/TiltDrool use of the term "denigrate", which means "to deny the importance or validity of". But here in the above citations we see the Buddha himself denigrating misrepresentations of his teachings, and in fact humiliating a monk who misrepresented his teachings. Is the Buddha being "self righteous" here? Is he "manifesting his body, speech, and mind to harm one who thinks differently from himself"?

You have been given examples from the words of the Buddha. Are you unwilling to address them, and if so, why?

[duexjepevef]

I choose my responses/comments like anyone else and as OP and user member, that is my prerogative.

Any others?

[Avoireeideree]

Mainly, heresy is a thought that contradicts a dogma, and since there are no dogmas here, you cannot contradict them... However, the Buddha taught patience and tolerance to any other point of view, and if anyone wishes to question His teachings, let them do it... in the end, you are the one who is going to choose what you believe in, not the others, you are the one who is going to accept or deny the Dhamma... Let the others believe in whatever they want to believe... that is my personal opinion.

May all sentient beings find true happiness.

[fd8IIys2]

Hi plwk,

The term 'heresy' was originally applied in the Christian Church to indicate opinion contrary to the orthodox doctrine. I'm not sure how one can transfer/apply it to the Buddhism of today. The traditions are so different - and even some of the schools within those traditions.

kind wishes,

A-D

[infollafago]

Buddhists do use the term adhamma, though. So perhaps the issue/question has to do with how we define dhamma/dharma.

Just the suttas, and if so, only the Pali version of same?
Among the suttas, do we include all the suttas?
Abhidhamma -- yes/no?
Prajnaparamita?
Mahayana in general?
Pure Land sutras?
The Zen canon?
Nichiren?
Tantra?
Vajrayana terma?

And besides the answers we may come up with invidually, we may also have to delineate our relationship to Buddhist institutions and communities. "Sangha" is one of the Triple Jewels after all.

[Sydrothcoathy]

I think if plwk could let us know what he considers to be the 'orthodox' position it would be helpful and avoid confusion. (for me at any rate!)

Buddhists do use the term adhamma, though. So perhaps the issue/question has to do with how we define dhamma/dharma.

Just the suttas, and if so, only the Pali version of same?
Among the suttas, do we include all the suttas?
Abhidhamma -- yes/no?
Prajnaparamita?
Mahayana in general?
Pure Land sutras?
The Zen canon?
Nichiren?
Tantra?
Vajrayana terma?

And besides the answers we may come up with invidually, we may also have to delineate our relationship to Buddhist institutions and communities. "Sangha" is one of the Triple Jewels after all.

Your post is confusing me even further, LazyEye, lol ! Lets not turn it into too much of an academic exercise because then it limits the people who are willing to join in.

....but yes, we do need a definition of some kind as I was trying to point out in a roundabout way #7.

[IvJlNwum]

I choose my responses/comments like anyone else and as OP and user member, that is my prerogative.

Yes. Avoidance, presumptuousness, sideways slams and back-handed cattiness are all your prerogatives.

But pointing these out is my prerogative as well ;-)

[SaraKonradtt]

...peace_fingers.jpg

[liontutuxx]

Buddhists do use the term adhamma, though.

How do we know? Because our mind was indoctrinated about it on DW?

In the Pali, the definitions of dhamma and adhamma are clear.

Dhammo have rakkhati dhammacāriṃ
dhammo suciṇṇo sukhamāvahati;
Esānisaṃso dhamme suciṇṇe,
na duggatiṃ gacchati dhammacārī.

Nahi dhammo adhammo ca, ubho samavipākino;
Adhammo nirayaṃ neti, dhammo pāpeti suggatiṃ.

The Dhamma protects those who live by the Dhamma.
The Dhamma well-practiced brings happiness.
This is the reward when Dhamma is well-practiced:
One who lives by the Dhamma does not go to a bad destination.

For Dhamma and non-Dhamma do not bear equal fruit
Dhamma leads to a good destination; Non-Dhamma leads to hell.

Dhammika

[Gozmand]

So perhaps the issue/question has to do with how we define dhamma/dharma.

Just the suttas, and if so, only the Pali version of same?
Among the suttas, do we include all the suttas?
Abhidhamma -- yes/no?
Prajnaparamita?
Mahayana in general?
Pure Land sutras?
The Zen canon?
Nichiren?
Tantra?
Vajrayana terma?

And besides the answers we may come up with invidually, we may also have to delineate our relationship to Buddhist institutions and communities. "Sangha" is one of the Triple Jewels after all.

[sportbos]

Is there such a thing as in Buddhism?

Do you at 'heretics'?

Of course, silly. If it isn't contained in the Pali Sutta's, then it's heresy. Didn't you know that?

But, seriously, the thing I love most about Buddhism is that we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt through our own experience whether the Dharma is efficacious or not, regardless of others opinions. Heresy is only possible with attachment to a view.

Good luck and thanks for practicing,
Keith

[AngelBee]

Of course, silly. If it isn't contained in the Pali Sutta's, then it's heresy. Didn't you know that?

More like if the Buddha didn't teach it, he didn't teach it. An inconvenient truth for you.

But, seriously, the thing I love most about Buddhism is that we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt through our own experience whether the Dharma is efficacious or not, regardless of others opinions. Heresy is only possible with attachment to a view. When the Buddha spoke of attachment to views, he meant speculative views and superstitions. The Buddha was clear in his intent that his own teachings be preserved intact and not hijacked and bastardized.

[Mangoman]

How do we know? Because our mind was indoctrinated about it on DW?

In the Pali, the definitions of dhamma and adhamma are clear.

Ah, Element, I don't see an actual definition presented in the exerpt you posted. It just says what will happen as a result of choosing one or the other.

Would you care to elaborate?

[fuslssdfaa]

More like if the Buddha didn't teach it, he didn't teach it. An inconvenient truth for you.



When the Buddha spoke of attachment to views, he meant speculative views and superstitions. The Buddha was clear in his intent that his own teachings be preserved intact and not hijacked and bastardized.

An attachment to a view is just that. One's own experience is the proof, not words in a book.

[6M8PJigS]

Your post is confusing me even further, LazyEye, lol ! Lets not turn it into too much of an academic exercise because then it limits the people who are willing to join in.

....but yes, we do need a definition of some kind as I was trying to point out in a roundabout way #7.

I just meant that the various traditions define "dhamma" somewhat differently, and thus they will have different ideas about what constitutes "adhamma" (not-dhamma). The list gave examples of the points of divergence.

[appletango]

An attachment to a view is just that. One's own experience is the proof, not words in a book.

The Buddha spoke of chandha in reference to the Dhamma, and praised it. We are speaking of the words of the Buddha, not "words in a book" or superstitions and "views". Why bother to call yourself "Buddhist" at all, if the words of the Buddha are nothing to you?

[lzwha]

I just meant that the various traditions define "dhamma" somewhat differently, and thus they will have different ideas about what constitutes "adhamma" (not-dhamma). The list gave examples of the points of divergence.

Again, why bother calling oneself "Buddhist", if the teachings of the Buddha are of no consequence? Might as well just admit being a "something-else-ist" -- whatever that "something else" may be -- and be done with it.