4 ms·

> Does that not sound Buddhist to you? Did you think Buddhism was the religion of flourishing and positivity? Well, here is the Buddha, excoriating a monk who b

> Does that not sound Buddhist to you? Did you think Buddhism was the religion of flourishing and positivity? Well, here is the Buddha, excoriating a monk who broke his vow of celibacy: “Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina.” I'm not sure what the problem is here? Someone took a vow of celibacy and broke it. Should he be praised? Are we looking for something more middle class and passive aggressive from the Buddha? He makes his point. > And here is the Buddha on whether you should be resentful if you’re being dismembered: “Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching.” Rhetoric is not helpful now? It's certainly possible to criticise Buddha, Buddhism, any of the Buddhist religions etc but I would start with my most important or best criticisms, and I don't see these hitting the mark at all.

traes 4y ago
I know nothing about this topic and am likely making a complete fool of myself, but I think the point they were making is that the first statement seems to be ill will for a far less egregious offense than you are told to ignore in the second.
- 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  I give you that - a more deadpan reaction would have been better. So you broke your vows - well, that's your life and you're no longer welcome among my disciples - good bye and best of luck. No need to get angry. But that's why nobody should take scriptures literally. They go through so many ears and mouths and pens that it's effectively a telephone game.
  - ewzimm 4y ago
    This isn't about being punished for not following rules or vows. According to tradition, there weren't even any rules in the beginning, but they developed in response to the growth of new recruits. This is a statement about the gravity of the situation for a monk specifically. To live a celibate monastic life is to be extremely sensitive and also to have an abusable power over others. Sexual misconduct is particularly dangerous for someone in a position of spiritual authority. The example is extreme because it is meant to put the problem into context. Everyone can immediately think of someone harmed by religious sexual abuse, but the idea that it's the context of the sex and not the sex itself is still difficult for us to understand because of our preconceptions. Buddhist morality always focuses on intention and context. The rules for monks and lay people are completely different for a reason.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I see your point and there’s nothing foolish whatsoever in what you’ve written, but the actual point (the one that pertains to the practice the Buddha is giving) is that they’re both about what you (the supposed adherent) do. In both you’re supposed to do X, it doesn’t matter what Y does, so each is no different. Perhaps if Buddha got the chance to speak to someone dismembered by saws who hadn’t continued with a loving heart towards their attacker then he’d call them a bloody idiot too. I also don’t think it’s right to think that someone speaking that way is harbouring ill will, do we not sometimes scold children for their own good and out of love? Must we always be avoiding plain speaking so that we appear kind? He was a trainer, not someone’s mum.

traes 4y ago

I know nothing about this topic and am likely making a complete fool of myself, but I think the point they were making is that the first statement seems to be ill will for a far less egregious offense than you are told to ignore in the second.

2-718-281-828 4y ago
I give you that - a more deadpan reaction would have been better. So you broke your vows - well, that's your life and you're no longer welcome among my disciples - good bye and best of luck. No need to get angry. But that's why nobody should take scriptures literally. They go through so many ears and mouths and pens that it's effectively a telephone game.
- ewzimm 4y ago
  This isn't about being punished for not following rules or vows. According to tradition, there weren't even any rules in the beginning, but they developed in response to the growth of new recruits. This is a statement about the gravity of the situation for a monk specifically. To live a celibate monastic life is to be extremely sensitive and also to have an abusable power over others. Sexual misconduct is particularly dangerous for someone in a position of spiritual authority. The example is extreme because it is meant to put the problem into context. Everyone can immediately think of someone harmed by religious sexual abuse, but the idea that it's the context of the sex and not the sex itself is still difficult for us to understand because of our preconceptions. Buddhist morality always focuses on intention and context. The rules for monks and lay people are completely different for a reason.
brigandish 4y ago
I see your point and there’s nothing foolish whatsoever in what you’ve written, but the actual point (the one that pertains to the practice the Buddha is giving) is that they’re both about what you (the supposed adherent) do. In both you’re supposed to do X, it doesn’t matter what Y does, so each is no different. Perhaps if Buddha got the chance to speak to someone dismembered by saws who hadn’t continued with a loving heart towards their attacker then he’d call them a bloody idiot too. I also don’t think it’s right to think that someone speaking that way is harbouring ill will, do we not sometimes scold children for their own good and out of love? Must we always be avoiding plain speaking so that we appear kind? He was a trainer, not someone’s mum.