Re: What Buddha said about trolls expounding views

cupcake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Pema Ballerina wrote:
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Original face 12) wrote in message [6]news:<20031120164
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >From: "Evelyn Ruut" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> >> >Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized,
> >> >nor upon ritual observances.
> >>
> >> are u first reading what u are writing here. the buddha is playing a cruel
> >> trick upon u. be still
> >> meditation is about to begin
> >> Ben sitting down quickly, she has awakened the buddha
> >> and his many sleeping dragons.
> >> oh my
> >> Ben covering his eyes
> >> Ben
> >
> >  the buddha plays no cruel tricks on anyone. the buddha is dead.
> > for a doctor, you should know when someone is dead.
> >
> 
>      the good doctor understands what dead is  --  but i'm 
>      not sure either yu or the good doctor, or any of the 
>      rest of the people around here, understand what "gone"
>      is (vis a vis  PariNibbana)...

<Sorry for the late post, i been busy, not reading the ngs...>

Indeed the point to be noted, and both Ev's sutta quote and this are
explained in these related passages: (please pardon the capitalized
passages, i'm not pretending the Boss was yelling/shrill/etc, just a
book mark for some who might be quickly skimming through these
passages, an attention getter to suggest that the rest is also worth
noticing.):

On having no view/non-mentation:

Sutta Nipata IV.5
Paramatthaka Sutta
On Views

"A PERSON WHO ASSOCIATES HIMSELF WITH CERTAIN VIEWS,
CONSIDERING THEM AS *BEST* AND MAKING THEM SUPREME IN THE WORLD,
HE SAYS, BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT ALL OTHER VIEWS ARE *INFERIOR*:
**THEREFORE HE IS NOT FREE FROM CONTENTION (WITH OTHERS).**

In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, 
he sees a profit for himself. 
Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as
worthless.

Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view becomes) a bond if, 
relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior.
 
Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, 
heard or cognized, 
nor upon ritual observances.

HE SHOULD NOT PRESENT HIMSELF AS EQUAL TO,
NOR IMAGINE HIMSELF TO BE INFERIOR,
NOR BETTER THAN ANOTHER. 

ABANDONING (THE VIEWS) HE HAD (PREVIOUSLY) HELD
AND NOT TAKING UP (ANOTHER),
HE DOES NOT SEEK SUPPORT EVEN IN KNOWLEDGE. 

AMONG THOSE WHO DISPUTE HE IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE TO TAKE SIDES.

**HE DOES NOT [HAVE] RECOURSE TO A VIEW AT ALL.**
  
In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, 
for becoming or non-becoming, 
here or in another existence, 
for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the
doctrines assumed (by others).

CONCERNING THE SEEN, THE HEARD AND THE COGNIZED HE DOES NOT FORM THE
LEAST NOTION.

That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, 
with what could he be identified in the world? 
"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); 
doctrines are not accepted by them.
 
A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views." 

-- vv. 796-803 

--------
Sutta Nipata IV.3
Dutthatthaka Sutta
Corrupted


There are some who dispute
    corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
    their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
    nowhere constrained. 
Now, how would one
    led on by desire,
    entrenched in his likes,
    forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows. 

Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature -- 
    he who speaks of himself
    of his own accord. 

But a monk at peace,
    fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
    -- "That's how I am" -- 
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature -- 
    he with no vanity
    with regard to the world. 

One whose doctrines aren't clean -- 
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage -- 
    relies on a peace
    dependent
    on what can be shaken. 

Because entrenchments in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
    that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine -- 
    in light of these very
    entrenchments. 

NOW, ONE WHO IS CLEANSED
   HAS NO PRECONCIEVED VIEW
ABOUT STATES OF BECOMING
             OR NOT - 
   ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
Having abandoned conceit & illusion,
by what means would he go?
        He isn't involved. 

For one who's involved
    gets into disputes
    over doctrines,
but how -- in connection with what -- 
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
    He has nothing
embraced or rejected,
has sloughed off every view
    right here -- every one. 
-------------

<<that being understood, here is the raw deal, starting with the words
" Apart fom their perception...">>

Sutta Nipata IV.12
Cula-viyuha Sutta
The Lesser Array

"Dwelling on
their own views,
quarreling,
different skilled people say:
'Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.
Whoever rejects this, is
        imperfect.'
Thus quarreling, they dispute:
'My opponent's a fool & unskilled.'
Which of these statements is true
when all of them say they are skilled?" 

"If, in not accepting
an opponent's doctrine,
one's a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,
then all are fools
of inferior discernment -- 
all of these
who dwell on their views.
But if, in siding with a view,
one's cleansed,
with discernment made pure,
    intelligent, skilled,
then none of them
are of inferior discernment,
for all of them
have their own views.
I don't say, 'That's how it is,'
the way fools say to one another.
They each make out their views to be true
and so regard their opponents as fools." 

"What some say is true
-- 'That's how it is' -- 
others say is 'falsehood, a lie.'
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can't contemplatives
say one thing & the same?" 


    "The truth is one,
    there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various personal truths,
that's why they don't say
one thing & the same." 
"But why do they say
various truths,
those who say they are skilled?
Have they learned many various truths
or do they follow conjecture?" 


"Apart from their perception
there are no
    many
    various
    constant truths
    in the world.
Preconceiving conjecture
with regard to views,
they speak of a pair: true
    & false.
Dependent on what's seen,
            heard,
            & sensed,
dependent on precepts & practices,
one shows disdain [for others].
Taking a stance on his decisions,
praising himself, he says,
'My opponent's a fool & unskilled.'
    That by which
he regards his opponents as fools
    is that by which
        he says he is skilled.
Calling himself skilled
he despises another
who speaks the same way. 
Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,
drunk with conceit, thinking himself perfect,
he has consecrated, with his own mind,
    himself
    as well as his view. 

If, by an opponent's word,
one's inferior,
        the opponent's
of inferior discernment as well.
But if, by one's own word
one's an attainer-of-wisdom, enlightened,
    no one
among contemplative's
    a fool. 

'Those who teach a doctrine other than this
are lacking in purity,
    imperfect.'
That's what the many sectarians say,
for they're smitten with passion
for their own views.
    'Only here is there purity,'
    that's what they say.
    'In no other doctrine
    is purity,' they say.
That's how the many sectarians
are entrenched,
speaking firmly there
concerning their own path.
Speaking firmly concerning your own path,
what opponent here would you take as a fool?
You'd simply bring quarrels on yourself
if you said your opponent's a fool
with an impure doctrine. 

Taking     a stance on your decisions,
        & yourself as your measure,
you dispute further **down
into the world**. 

But one who's abandoned
    all decisions
creates in the world
quarrels no more." 

<Abandons samskara-s, karma-formations grasping at resultant
concepts/feelings; breaks the nidana-s.>
------------------

Like "fully awakening", what the Boss taught here is more a sense of a
process that we all work with. The views that we have are the dirt of
the path we work with everyday. The Buddha ain't is or isn't or any
fantasy between, and all our views about "reality" are in the same box
with S's cat... Only if that works.
The Boss said complete view was no dogma, just whatever worked to
wake-up...

But if we think that there is an i working with a process we are
already far away from the dhamma...