Dear Chris:

It's only a matter of what is worthy to be registred on official
documents. Ancient japanese shinto texts are a gore sequence of
battles win and lost, castles and citadels conquered and recupered on
and on. Boring. But all shinto sacred scholars have got these texts
in great esteem!
It`s Because they preserve the elder written registries on
japanese Culture!
Think about a Philosophy, a deep metaphysics, a sound religious
doctrine,etc, that have in their vaults as a high valued issue an
ancient narrative of The attack of the Hostile Pheasants against
Christine Forsyth, esq. What posterity would think about such
culture!!!
I think that singalese buddhistic culture has the Mahavamsa in so
great esteem due his pali remarks and Historical registries...
anyway, an arahant that is a active subject of the History is a rare
event!!!!

Mettaya, Ícaro





--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" <cforsyth@...>
wrote:

> Dear Robert, John, all,
>
> Rob, I don't understand your question to John. On the surface, at
> least, the quote below from the Mahavamsa seems at odds with the
> teachings of the Fortunate One, don't you think? There were
> reportedly 60,000 human beings killed by this King and his army.
> (And, in the quote, the King and his soldiers seem to have been
> absolved from the vipaka of the deaths of 59,998.5 people which are
> discounted and trivialised.) This war, if it occurred, was just a
> little footnote in history - not remembered today except in a
> relatively obscure text. If it occurred, then this killing was in
> brutal hand to hand combat. It takes a lot of intention, effort,
> fear and hatred to kill another human with a sword, knife, spear or
> hammer - there are litres of blood, and noise - a lot of running,
> tackling, struggling, pleading, cursing - multiplied 60,000 times.
> (WMD are so easy by comparison.)
>
> Perhaps you are considering that the Arahant's explanation is in
> terms of anatta, that there really are no humans killing or being
> killed? But, the consolation was being given to a worldling, and

has

> no doubt been reflected on through the centuries by other

worldlings

> like me, who may not yet have penetrated the meaning of the 4NT.
> Additionally, there seems to be a dismissive devaluing of the

taking

> of the lives of Unbelievers ... my understanding is that the Buddha
> taught us to respect, have tolerance for, and care about those who
> were followers of other teachers.
>
> John, I think it concerns me the most that the speech is said to

have

> been made by an Arahant. Often if I am uncomfortable or puzzled
> about anything in the Tipitaka, I put the concern aside hoping it
> will be clearer in the future, consoling myself that the Tipitaka
> bears the hallmark of approval of the Arahants. Perhaps this is
> naivety ... I have a memory (can't turn up the post) of someone
> stating that the Mahavamsa was examined and included in the

Tipitaka

> at the Sixth Buddhist Council in Burma in the fifties?
> ===============
> Quote, with speech attributed to an Arahant:
> "Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O
> lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other

had

> taken unto himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil
> life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for
> thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in

manifold

> ways; therefore cast away care from the heart, O ruler of men
> (xxv.108-112)."
> ================
>
> metta and peace,
> Christine
> ---The trouble is that you think you have time ---
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
> > Dear John and all,
> > What is incompatible in the mahavamsa with the Tipitaka?
> > RobertK
> > ---
> >
> > In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "John Kelly" <palistudent@...> wrote:
> > > Dear Christine,
> > >
> > > Calling the Mahaava.msa "Buddhist scriptures" is a bit of a
> > > stretch. I could be wrong, but I understood that this was a
> later
> > > chronicle developed in Sri Lanka, and not part of the canon at
> all.
> > > Certainly the sentiments expressed are not at all compatible

with

> > > anything else I've read in the canon.
> > >
> > > Metta,
> > > John