Originally posted by sinweiy:it's against forum rule #
4) Do not use offensive or vulgar language. Any postings of insulting texts, urls, images will be removed by moderators without any notices.
5) Do not engage in personal attacks. Posts of such nature will be removed by moderators without any notices.http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/202797
/\
I don't find my post being offensive and/or personal attacks, this can easily fall into a subjective definition, and as you're a fervant follower of MCK, it is of no doubt that you will see me being offensive and engaging personal attack.
天親�薩往生論云：観彼世界相　��三界�
Vasubandhu's Discourse on the Pure Land states:
When I contemplate the nature of that Land,
I find that it surpasses all states of existence in the three worlds.
Amitabha's Pure Land is more virtuous in nature compared to our own Buddhist concept of the 33 Heavens, the Brahma heavens (梵天) or even the Heaven of Non-Thought and Non Non-thought (�想��想天), which are within the Three Worlds, so how can one even equate the theistic concept(s) of heaven to the Pure Land(s)? Frankly, to say so, unfortunately, is degrading the Pure Land and the PL teachings!
Tell a Jew/Christian/Muslim that their heaven is akin to our Buddhist Pure Land, not only will that land you in hot soup, people will also think, "what rubbish does Buddhism teach?!" This not only confuses the non-buddhists, but also Buddhists who do not practice Pure Land, as well as those who are practicing Pure Land! 自��他!
"Material form and material form do not hinder one another 事事無礙法界" should not and cannot be used in this context!
Sorry if i am found to be "nitpicking", putting labels or being dualistic, but this has to be clarified! If i am being dualistic, then from the above quote from the Larger Sutra, our Saha-world Teacher is even more so, because that Sutra comes from His Golden Mouth.
Gassho
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Originally posted by yamizi:
'cos it's a fact that he is not teaching proper Buddhism.
sw: think u also miss out those vcd that MCK stated otherwise. best to transcend labeling.
The concept of almighty, all-knowing, all-loving, creator God does not exist in rationale and logical buddhistic thinking.
sw : this is equal to Great Brahma god in Buddhism. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
think i also explained before that it's according to target audiences. it's teaching buddhists NOT to look down or slander other religions. if they do, then they are no different than the regular fundermentalists.
If your mck can tell people muslims and christians heavens are part of Amitabha's pureland, there is much room for people to exercise their discretion whether or not to believe.
sw: doesn't matter who they are outside, it matters in the inside. ie. never judge the book by it's cover.
"Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught."
AN 3.72 - Ajivaka SuttaSlander only applies when people deliberately twisted his words. The thing about mck is that, all of those stuff can be found in his own vcd. If you're going to say that we have to finish watching the whole series or what have you, please feedback to mck, to upgrade his presentation skills. I mean if the 'mainstream' buddhists are to slander him (according to you), then I believe mck has serious presentation problem that he may need to review.
sw: that's why i said u also miss out those vcds that MCK stated otherwise. regarding presentation, majority can interpret, while the minority misinterpret. or do people have serious interpretation problem. anyway, it's perfectly okay not be perfect.
people also need to reach His level of non-dualism. each dharma talk range from lower basic understanding to higher non-dualistic understanding. if higher non-dualistic understanding, cannot understand just emphasis on those u can understand. so it's not abt blind faith.
hence all have explanation. if still cannot accept the rational explanation, then i think u are only for sect bashingism. ie not just against MCK, but against all people from other schools. only aim/pick on the bones in the eggs 鸡蛋里挑骨头。don't want to see the good sides, only magnify the bad side (which is not). u see we ever pick on ur school? this i think is more like the working of mara. destroying buddhism from the inside. people want to promote harmony in school, but don't want, want to promote separatisms.
like mention, i also "hope some rationale people out there had read what I had posted and think about it. "
/\
sanath said my English is poor, obviously yours is worse than mine.
I'd already mentioned, if your excuse is going to be the same old "must see other vcd", please feedback to mck that he needs to learn how to improve his presentation skill in one vcd.
Brahma claimed to be almightly, all-loving, all-knowing and creator god, however, in the end he did confess to Buddha that he didn't know how creation come about. Check your basics.
You keep insisting that 'his level', so you're 'his level'? If not how can you actually understand what he meant?
In fact, I guess I'm starting to see the confusion whether are you trying to promote the Buddha's teachings or the mck's teachings.
If the imperfect stuff can be the root of false teachings, then that imperfect stuff is worth bringing up.
Buddhism should be presented as it is in its genuine form with sincerity, not with some nice paper wrappers which may cause others to have implied otherwise.
Originally posted by yamizi:I seriously don't believe christianity was like this when Jesus was around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwkmu6EJlTE&eur
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDoQaCDMtuo&feature=related
How commercialised christianity has evolved.
I think the worst is this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VHF-feF2PA&feature=related
And this is the one that's got the Korean president into hot soup, but fortunately, has made our fellow Buddhists in Korea 'rise up' to defend the Sasana.
Originally posted by yamizi:sanath said my English is poor, obviously yours is worse than mine.
I'd already mentioned, if your excuse is going to be the same old "must see other vcd", please feedback to mck that he needs to learn how to improve his presentation skill in one vcd.
Brahma claimed to be almightly, all-loving, all-knowing and creator god, however, in the end he did confess to Buddha that he didn't know how creation come about. Check your basics.
You keep insisting that 'his level', so you're 'his level'? If not how can you actually understand what he meant?
In fact, I guess I'm starting to see the confusion whether are you trying to promote the Buddha's teachings or the mck's teachings.
If the imperfect stuff can be the root of false teachings, then that imperfect stuff is worth bringing up.
Buddhism should be presented as it is in its genuine form with sincerity, not with some nice paper wrappers which may cause others to have implied otherwise.
I am talking from Theravada POV, so bear with my post and poor english.
One of the hallmark of Buddha's teaching is non-attachment and also confirmation of experience by ourselves, and not to rely on hearsay or tradition. In short, when other people say something is true, we should approach it carefully and to evaluate it for ourselves.
Now, it is certainly amusing when Muslims insist on Buddha Maitreya as Muhammad by speculating on various verses in their holy book, or when some christians said Jesus is the promised Maitreya. In that regard, I feel that we should not accord them the same courtesy by insisting that their heavens is part of Amitabha's pureland because it certainly provokes irritation on their part.
Originally posted by sanath:
yes, nobody are saying that the quote above is incorrect. all i'm saying is when the mind is pure the land is pure. 心净佛土.
"When I contemplate the nature of that Land,
I find that it surpasses all states of existence in the three worlds."
imho, if "surpasses all states" mean samsara and pureland/nirvana is seperated, than i think pureland would still be quite limited or obstructed, or just a 方便土.
it's when Amitabha pureland is neither samsara non pureland/nirvana, everywhere is pureland, then it's most surpassing. æ— éšœç¢�土.
anyway, very funny, this is like already believing and rebuting on a hearsay and proof-less speculation. i don't think MCK mean what he mean.
/\
Originally posted by soul2soul:I am talking from Theravada POV, so bear with my post and poor english.
One of the hallmark of Buddha's teaching is non-attachment and also confirmation of experience by ourselves, and not to rely on hearsay or tradition. In short, when other people say something is true, we should approach it carefully and to evaluate it for ourselves.
Now, it is certainly amusing when Muslims insist on Buddha Maitreya as Muhammad by speculating on various verses in their holy book, or when some christians said Jesus is the promised Maitreya. In that regard, I feel that we should not accord them the same courtesy by insisting that their heavens is part of Amitabha's pureland because it certainly provokes irritation on their part.
it's not that extend of insisting. just clarifying. but u are right that it certainly provokes irritation on their part. so we should reduce such talk.
/\
Originally posted by yamizi:I don't find my post being offensive and/or personal attacks, this can easily fall into a subjective definition, and as you're a fervant follower of MCK, it is of no doubt that you will see me being offensive and engaging personal attack.
excuses, obviously an insulting text. otherwise, it's just Anti-ing MCK or pureland, as there was no good stuff been said, only unwholesome words. unwholesome or wholesome, only ur mind know. but ok, let's be fair, can reduce or not? please.
/\
Originally posted by yamizi:
sanath said my English is poor, obviously yours is worse than mine.
sw: it's true. i don't mind. i never said, mine is very good. i'm working, so i need a faster style.
I'd already mentioned, if your excuse is going to be the same old "must see other vcd", please feedback to mck that he needs to learn how to improve his presentation skill in one vcd.
sw: people eat salt more than u eat rice. started presentation abt 40 years ago. so cannot like that compare. most people can accept. but guess, some people's dharma roots not enough to understand. i agree sometimes some saying can be confusing, but i respect him as a teacher. not just him, all other dharma masters as well.
Brahma claimed to be almightly, all-loving, all-knowing and creator god, however, in the end he did confess to Buddha that he didn't know how creation come about. Check your basics.
sw: yes, i know, but i don't see any relevent to the topic.
You keep insisting that 'his level', so you're 'his level'? If not how can you actually understand what he meant?
In fact, I guess I'm starting to see the confusion whether are you trying to promote the Buddha's teachings or the mck's teachings.If the imperfect stuff can be the root of false teachings, then that imperfect stuff is worth bringing up.
sw: simple, see can undertstand when the mind is pure the land is pure 心净佛土净. and given a case in Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni touch the ground to show His disciples His pureland within samsara. all Buddhas pureland are alike. maybe should read/study some other sutras to understand.
Buddhism should be presented as it is in its genuine form with sincerity, not with some nice paper wrappers which may cause others to have implied otherwise.
sw: yes, but also don't want to see similar case like Maggie.meepok happening in Buddhism. ie. lost of true Buddha's teaching. u think it's genuine, but actually not genuine at all. but guess very difficult in Dharma ending age. sigh.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Originally posted by yamizi:
sanath said my English is poor, obviously yours is worse than mine.
sw: it's true. i don't mind. i never said, mine is very good. i'm working, so i need a faster style.
I'd already mentioned, if your excuse is going to be the same old "must see other vcd", please feedback to mck that he needs to learn how to improve his presentation skill in one vcd.
sw: people eat salt more than u eat rice. started presentation abt 40 years ago. so cannot like that compare. most people can accept. but guess, some people's dharma roots not enough to understand. i agree sometimes some saying can be confusing, but i respect him as a teacher. not just him, all other dharma masters as well.
Brahma claimed to be almightly, all-loving, all-knowing and creator god, however, in the end he did confess to Buddha that he didn't know how creation come about. Check your basics.
sw: yes, i know, but i don't see any relevent to the topic.
You keep insisting that 'his level', so you're 'his level'? If not how can you actually understand what he meant?
In fact, I guess I'm starting to see the confusion whether are you trying to promote the Buddha's teachings or the mck's teachings.If the imperfect stuff can be the root of false teachings, then that imperfect stuff is worth bringing up.
sw: simple, see can undertstand when the mind is pure the land is pure 心净佛土净. and given a case in Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni touch the ground to show His disciples His pureland within samsara. all Buddhas pureland are alike. maybe should read/study some other sutras to understand.
Buddhism should be presented as it is in its genuine form with sincerity, not with some nice paper wrappers which may cause others to have implied otherwise.
sw: yes, but also don't want to see similar case like Maggie.meepok happening in Buddhism. ie. lost of true Buddha's teaching. u think it's genuine, but actually not genuine at all. but guess very difficult in Dharma ending age. sigh.
/\
And how do you define 'most people'? Are these 'most people' well-informed of Dhamma etc? Or they had already been influenced?
Or just mere hearsay? Or just because his talk attracts a lot of people?
Wht makes you think I have no understanding on pureland? Simply because I quote more from Lotus Sutra?
Too much assumptions already =)
Originally posted by yamizi:Eat salt too much will make one unhealthy. No wonder he has problem giving presentation.
And how do you define 'most people'? Are these 'most people' well-informed of Dhamma etc? Or they had already been influenced?
Or just mere hearsay? Or just because his talk attracts a lot of people?
Wht makes you think I have no understanding on pureland? Simply because I quote more from Lotus Sutra?
Too much assumptions already =)
'most people' can't say well-informed of Dhamma or not influenced. at least never disrespectful.
assumption in the sense, if really understand Buddha dharma, not just pureland, there shd be grow in wisdom light , patient, humbleness, and reduction in affliction/vexation and can accept criticism, can let go. if not, they are still "ordinary" buddhists.
judge people assuming, ownself also assuming.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
'most people' can't say well-informed of Dhamma or not influenced. at least never disrespectful.assumption in the sense, if really understand Buddha dharma, not just pureland, there shd be grow in wisdom light , patient, humbleness, and reduction in affliction/vexation and can accept criticism, can let go. if not, they are still "ordinary" buddhists.
judge people assuming, ownself also assuming.
/\
But what I see is that you cannot accept criticism which explained your earlier actions in removing my post against my will.
Thank you for the demostration on how people react when they can't accept criticism.
However, Buddha did teach us to be critical and analyse.
How can one be taken lightly in what they is their belief? Simply 'cos a bald head says so?
Anyway, in all mck-ism's spirit, since mck can hold a dhamma talk in a catholic chruch, bow to a crucifix, why buddhists still lack the courage to attend church?
All these buddhists know the differences betweem buddhism and mck-ism?
=)
Food for thought.
We had diverted and should stick back to the thread.
I will still encourage buddhists to attend church at least once in their lifetime to experience the difference in the dynamics of service between Christianity and Buddhism.
Take it as a chance to test your faith in Buddhism too.
yamizi,
I can see the insult of testing one's faith against another in your viewpoint. If you don't want to believe, why attend?
Originally posted by yamizi:We had diverted and should stick back to the thread.
I will still encourage buddhists to attend church at least once in their lifetime to experience the difference in the dynamics of service between Christianity and Buddhism.
Take it as a chance to test your faith in Buddhism too.
Christians don't go to buddist talks.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:yamizi,
I can see the insult of testing one's faith against another in your viewpoint. If you don't want to believe, why attend?
You believe in everything that has been taught to you when you attend school?
It's an experience and I don't meant to be an insult.
From my point of view and experience in this thread, many buddhists are quick to criticise how christians conduct their sermon by mere hearsay. So why not attend to experience for yourself then comment?
I wonder had AEN finally attend any church/cell service or not.
Heh.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:Christians don't go to buddist talks.
Not true. I used to attend a Friday sutta discussion at a certain buddhist centre in Singapore.
There is a christian who attend the discussion regularly and he is a very gentle, soft-spoken gentleman =)
Originally posted by yamizi:Not true. I used to attend a Friday sutta discussion at a certain buddhist centre in Singapore.
There is a christian who attend the discussion regularly and he is a very gentle, soft-spoken gentleman =)
Yes, I agree that there are very nice christians who won't force people also. Anyway, I know of some christians who would hold the jawstick(did i spell it right?).
Originally posted by yamizi:But what I see is that you cannot accept criticism which explained your earlier actions in removing my post against my will.
Thank you for the demostration on how people react when they can't accept criticism.
However, Buddha did teach us to be critical and analyse.
How can one be taken lightly in what they is their belief? Simply 'cos a bald head says so?
Anyway, in all mck-ism's spirit, since mck can hold a dhamma talk in a catholic chruch, bow to a crucifix, why buddhists still lack the courage to attend church?
All these buddhists know the differences betweem buddhism and mck-ism?
=)
Food for thought.
like said, it's against forum rules. can or cannot accept criticism is another thing.
if i cannot accept, i won't say i don't mind saying my english poor. actual, u slander me i also don't mind. it's not about this, it's about something regarding harmony.
like said, not all are well inform, some can also be emotionally attach to him. He ever said, those that are around him are worst than those learning without actually being with him.
but i don't think MCK Himself is not well cultivated.u can go up in front of him and insult him, see if he'll be moved by insult. if so, then he's just ordinary. either u learn like "saint" or u are still like ordinary being.
analyse is one thing ...note also that most of the times, this analytical/critical mind is wrong. as it's the 6th and 7th(ego) consciousness doing the thinking.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:like said, it's against forum rules. can or cannot accept criticism is another thing.
if i cannot accept, i won't say i don't mind saying my english poor. actual, u slander me i also don't mind. it's not about this, it's about something regarding harmony.
like said, not all are well inform, some can also be emotionally attach to him. He ever said, those that are around him are worst than those learning without actually being with him.
but i don't think MCK Himself is not well cultivated.u can go up in front of him and insult him, see if he'll be moved by insult. if so, then he's just ordinary. either u learn like "saint" or u are still like ordinary being.analyse is one thing ...note also that most of the times, this analytical/critical mind is wrong. as it's the 6th and 7th(ego) consciousness doing the thinking.
/\
Wow...then all our engineers, doctors and lawyers must have been using the wrong level of brain to analyse their work.
Anyway, I don't think I am insulting mck, that's your pov again, what I had stated can be found in his own vcd.
And why are you so persistent in learning from mck instead of the Buddha? 'cos you're really a mck-ist instead of a buddhist?
If I had slander you, I believe you have completely disregard Buddhism in its essence.
Originally posted by yamizi:
Wow...then all our engineers, doctors and lawyers must have been using the wrong level of brain to analyse their work.Anyway, I don't think I am insulting mck, that's your pov again, what I had stated can be found in his own vcd.
And why are you so persistent in learning from mck instead of the Buddha? 'cos you're really a mck-ist instead of a buddhist?
If I had slander you, I believe you have completely disregard Buddhism in its essence.
true what. anything that is to do with attachment, dualism and wandering thoughts, all wrong use of brain.
excuses. like explained, it's mistaken. anyway no solid proof, it's just "ur words". would best have solid proof or link to a decoded video to study. can be done. no proof cannot speculate or believe.
i say poor presentation is not the problem. if one need really prefect presentation skill to present, then i say can forget about propagating Dharma altogether..
moreover, if say not proper, then the whole of Buddhist community or internet, would have equal the teaching to falungong, cults... etc and rebuted it...and made known. but no. not to that extend. He's still been respected as a whole, even from the west. so such people that make problems are really one of a kind. i say this not as an actual "disciple" of Him, i'm not. but as a common buddhist and common knowing from all around. if happen to other good masters, i'll still protect the same.
i learnt from more dharma teachers than u think it's just only MCK. i seek dharma joy 法喜. MCK's teaching more traditional, i agree. but it's also about not being a 背师��. one that is against the way.
haha...right~. ..some anti-buddhist in disguise.
anyway, if see, any postings of insulting texts, they will be removed by moderators without any notices. i already did for some posts.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:true what. anything that is to do with attachment, dualism and wandering thoughts, all wrong use of brain.
excuses. like explained, it's mistaken. anyway no solid proof, it's just "ur words". would best have solid proof or link to a decoded video to study. can be done. no proof cannot speculate or believe.
i say poor presentation is not the problem. if one need really prefect presentation skill to present, then i say can forget about propagating Dharma altogether..moreover, if say not proper, then the whole of Buddhist community or internet, would have equal the teaching to falungong, cult etc and rebuted. but never. so such people really is one of a kind.
i learnt from more dharma teachers than u think it's just only MCK. MCK's teaching more traditional, i agree. but it's also about not being a 背师��. one that is against the way. i seek dharma joy 法喜.
haha...right~. ..some anti-buddhist in disguise. have come across many buddhists, really one of a kind.
anyway, if see, any postings of insulting texts, they will be removed by moderators without any notices. i already did for some posts.
/\
You're the one holding the power, you can do what you want.
Power corrupts =)
Originally posted by yamizi:You're the one holding the power, you can do what you want.
Power corrupts =)
so does contempt.
actually a lot of exceptions already. if in e-sangha, already banned.
anyway, best to closed thread for unwholesome verbal action which are any one or more of the following (1) Lying, (2) Slander and tale-bearing, (3) Harsh speech, and (4) Frivolous and meaningless talk.
/\