Chaz wrote:What is it about people on this board thinking they can be insulting towards other people's teachers?
I have not intentionally insulted your teacher. I have said he lacks the basics if indeed he teaches that craving and ignorance do not lead to rebirth. This is no more insulting than pointing out that the light of the moon is a reflection of sunlight.
Contrary to what some assume there is actual structure and definite teachings in Buddhadharma. It is not whatever you want it to be. There is dharma and there is adharma.
If you object to my criticism then prove to me through citation of scripture or through reasoning that craving and ignorance do not lead to rebirth. If you should like to defend your teacher then refute me rather than merely calling me a jerk.
If rebirth is an actual phenomenon, which we can present evidence for, then it is imperative to discuss and understand the process itself as well as the significance of it.
But you're not "discussing it". YOu're being insulting towards others who's thinking on the subject differs from yours.
This is your perception and not mine.
If division arises because of it then so be it.
I sure hope you're joking.
Like I said, the truth is more important than petty social conventions and social harmony on an internet forum.
I've run into this problem before in real life as well. I've criticized poor teachers in front of a class and refuted their fallacious ideas. I was called disrespectful as a result. Some colleagues became rather upset. No, it is not disrespectful to disagree, debate and refute. Likewise in a temple. I debate with the teacher and I get phonecalls from cranky old women saying how disrespectful I am.
Unfortunately, petty social conventions are prized far more than genuine discussion.
I came to the point that I really don't care if people come to dislike me for initiating discussion and debate. They might say, "It isn't about what you say, but how you say it." I still don't care. That's all petty social convention. On the other hand, I know others benefit greatly through honest and frank discussion. In my experience I might socially shot myself in the foot by criticizing others' arguments and ideas in front of them and everyone else, but at the end of the day some, though they remain silent, benefit from it. Moreover, I know myself I have benefited greatly through hearing others do the same thing.
In the context of internet forums I learned a great deal from Namdrol on eSangha. He without hesitation refuted and criticized faulty arguments and adharma. A lot of people may dislike him for it, but that's not really an issue.
So you'd like us Americans to basically toss the 1st Amendment?
I'm a canuck living in Tokyo. I don't care about the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution.
I've not advocated censorship. I merely say that such people should not presume to write books on Buddhism as it misleads people into wrong views which eradicate the possibility of achieving liberation. The first of the Eightfold Noble Path is Right View. Without Right View there is no correct thought, practise, samadhi and so on.
However that may be, he has freedom of speech and the right to publish his ideas. On the other hand, I have the freedom to criticize his ideas.
I have never advocated censorship of anyone I disagreed with.
Yet, without the cred to make the point stick (again the case around here) any denouncing won't be taken too seriously and may even prove to be offensive. Not particularly skillfull. So when it' said on this board that so-an-so isn't a qualified teacher of Dharma it's just BS.
I've explained my position regarding why said person is not a qualified teacher of Buddhism.
Now I'd like to think that Ven Leti is the real deal, but I've just been told, by Huseng, that my own guru is lacking in basics, so, if my root guru isn't qualified, then who is?
If your teacher insists that craving (or attachment as you refer to it) and ignorance do not lead to rebirth, they are mistaken. This is a basic principle in Buddhadharma. It is not my fault if your teacher is mistaken.