Sam Vara wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:59 am
User1249x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:55 am
I do not see why i cant say that, please explain
Because you then go on to use it as follows:
Therefore;
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
Therefore;
Take away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy being passed off as True Dhamma
It would only be the case that "Taking away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy..." if the pointing out of errors was a
necessary condition for maintaining the true Dhamma. It's not. The true Dhamma can be maintained without the pointing out of errors by a third party. It might be nice to have it, but not necessary. Your error was in conflating the two uses of "condition" to arrive at your "bunch of heresy" conclusion.
Do you deny variance in general intelligence?
Not at all. We do seem to have strayed some way from the issue of slandering the Buddha, though, so it would be useful to link this back to the OP if you want to pursue this point.
As i understood you "XB" is false because "AX" is false and "AX" is false because "XB" is false but "AX" is true, that does not really make sense but whatever.
It is necessary to point out errors to a certain extent and to that extent it is a condition for maintaining the Dhamma, to that extent it maintains the Dhamma... You may disagree with the extent to which it is necessary to point out errors but there is no logical error.
t's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear.
who do you think are the worthless people, the one pointing out the mistakes or those who teach heresy?
"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way?
"Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint.
i think that the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage and if nobody is there to point out errors these worthless people do not arrive at true Dhamma by themselves and will corrupt the teachings.
The unwise who rely on evil views
To malign the teachings of the noble arahants
Who live the Dharma
Produce fruit that destroys themselves,
Like the kathaka reed that dies upon bearing fruit.
Only by the effort of the good people is the Dhamma maintained.
DhP 151
Beautiful king's chariots wear out. And also the body gets old.
But the teaching of the good ones does not get old. The good ones teach it
to each other.
Furthermore should one continiously point out errors if people are quarrelsome and fixed in wrong view, should one ignore them and let them to their own devices or should one expell them?
Answer is one should expell them.
As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, one of the mendicants might commit an offence or transgression. In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this: ‘[...] I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.
[...]
But if you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re angry and hostile. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity for such a person.
"The practice of Dhamma, [1] the practice of continence, [2] mastery of this is said to be best if a person has gone forth from home to the homeless life. But if he is garrulous and, like a brute, delights in hurting others, his life is evil and his impurity increases.
"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.
"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering."
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,[1] doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
Being a Buddhist forum i hope people take to their senses and follow the highest authority rather than being guided by ideas of liberalism, post-modernism, presumptions of intellectual equality and start taking action expelling the cancer.