Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="alagakkonara" data-source="post: 5302846" data-attributes="member: 128791">You have completely edited your post to the last word, out of anger. I don't know why you edited this without posting your opinion. However anger will not give anything but cloud your judgment.I agree with you any damn person can have any goddamn view on any goddamn thing. I do not have anything to prove, Nor I have any problem with anything you or anyone else do, as long as you do not try to pin it to dhamma. I will raise my opinion only on this latter case, because as a Sri Lankan I somewhat feel responsible that I should act my best to preserve dhamma, the best I understand. This is not for you, or anyone who will refuse simplest of logics, but for those who will come seeking the real value. People wanting to alter dhamma to suit their beliefs is the same reason, that we are having different ideas today. People today trying to do the same will result in greater changes in dhamma.I know that I have errors and maybe my understandings are wrong. If I understand this myself one day, or if someone explains that I'm wrong, I will accept that and immediately change my views.Someone asked me a question the other day, He asked me "How will you overcome hunger?" I said "I eat food". He asked me "But won't you feel hungry again?" I said "yes".  "How will you overcome hunger?". The answer is not eating food, it is temporary. The answer is something else. But he who understands that the answer is something else, will seek it. He only has to go little further from his normal thinking to understand that answer lies somewhere else. It's simple, but yet people refuse to see. Therby "Dhamma is only for the wise."For such people, few things to think when reading the above article.(1) 'Buddha charithaya' is a story, written at a later time. The story is biased and reflects the ideas of the writer no matter what the real story is. The value of 'buddha charithaya' to us  is  taken as long as we filter the logics of the story.(2) Killing a 'gadawila' and eating its meat is same as killing a 'haraka' and eating its meat. (3) Can there be contradictions between "Vinaya pitakaya" and dhamma?(4) If "Vinaya Pitakaya" is so clear why  "Thewana dhamma sangayana" was a result of a dispute over "Vinaya?". Why were there several groups among monks, at the time, if 'Vinaya' was so clear?(5) What is the reflection from dhamma in the article?(6) Is this article totally based on "Buddha charithaya and some Vinaya Karana?"(7) Despite all the examples, can one really believe that buddha would ever encourage in anyway, in any simple way, killing an animal?</blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom