Ok Mumfie, where does this lie in the heresy scale? Derivatives and commentaries of Buddha's original Dhamma (coming hundreds of years after the Buddha) which contain contradictions and incoherence? Obviously the composers were sincere and didn't intend to contradict the Buddha, but they lie to themselves and insist not only are there no contradictions, but you can't understand the Buddha's original teachings without using their corrupt dictionary redefining many important terms. The unorthodox call themselves the orthodox, and all others they call heretics.
robertk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:51 pmYou could also add this: The Expositor p.37
He who prohibits (the teaching of) Abhidhamma gives a blow to the Wheel of the Conqueror, denies omniscience, subverts the Teacher’s knowledge full of confidence, deceives the audience, obstructs the path of the Ariyas, manifests himself as advocating one’ of the eighteen causes of dissension in the Order, is capable of doing acts for which the doer is liable to be ex- communicated, or admonished,’ Or scorned (by the Order), and should be dismissed after the particular act of excommunication, admonition, or scorn, and reduced to living on scraps of food.
This is a great point, robertk. Personally I have seen some monks teaching sermons yet without the knowledge of Abhidhamma, having difficulty in differentiating sammuti and paramattha.... And each of them contradicting one another with no consensus at all, and each of them claimed they knew better than the Theras in the past who relied on Pali Tipitaka and Atthakatha, by saying "....refering to the Nikayas" yet their understanding of the origin of Nikayas is so distorted. Another famous Malaysian Chinese monk named Dhammavuddho, while rejecting Abhidhamma & commentaries, introduced "soul" into Buddha's teachings. Some other even explained by adhering to modern scientific terms and gave no insight at all, mere jargons, and it even push even further away to the point of total confusion, though keep repeating the phrase "we follow Suttas". All these misguided people, can only verbally attack the great Theras in the past, not knowing that those Theras were actually Arahants (such as Ven. Moggaliputta Tissa Thera). As to why some layfollowers despise the great Theras in the past, I can only guess it is their jealousy, pride and foolishness. Much demerits has been accumulated by them. They can say whatever they want, as they preaching there is kammavipaka, yet the way they act is totally contradicting to what they say. Let see how they can endure the Vipakas.
What Bhaddantacariya Buddhaghosa Thera said is correct, those without Abhidhamma knowledge, that is, the ability to decipher the concepts of Sabhava, as well as both Sammuti and Paramattha, are not capable to give full exposition and analysis of the Dhamma, and hence couldn't differentiate between Dhamma and Adhamma in more detail ways, couldn't explain the meaning of Sassataditthi and Ucchedaditthi and they different from Anattavada of Lord Buddha in details. For the Lord Buddha, the Master is known as "Vibhajjavadi", the Analyser. And Abhidhamma is the best evidence to that name.
Mumfie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:48 am Where does what lie on the heresy scale? That is, which part of your post is the heresy on whose gravity you wish me to venture an opinion?
Post by frank k » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:04 am There's a number of things referenced in my post that I believe are heresy worthy.
On a different topic, here's a great bit from Emo Phillips on religion. If the video player not showing up yet, It's a 3Mb download, 1.5 min viewing pleasure (also thought provocative, insightful, hilarious).
No comments:
Post a Comment