Re: What Buddha said about trolls expounding views

"norbu_tragri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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...

are you talking about a TREE ?
not about humans, I suppose.. :-)