Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta  (Read 11307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BTY

  • Bhikkhu
  • Bukan Tamu
  • *****
  • Posts: 34
  • Reputasi: 17
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #30 on: 05 September 2014, 11:21:02 AM »
"Orang sesat" yang dirujuk dalam sutta ini adalah terjemahan dari kata "moghapurisa", orang yang diliputi moha. Kadangkala istilah ini diterjemahkan juga sebagai orang dungu, orang bodoh.  Menurut hemat saya, penggunaan ungkapan "moghapurisa" tidak sekasar yang dibayangkan. Mungkin bisa dicari istilah Indonesia yang lebih sesuai?
Seorang bhikkhu dilarang menggunakan kata-kata kasar, ini ada dalam peraturan winaya. Demikian pula seorang Buddha takkan menggunakan kata-kata kasar.

Offline K.K.

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 8.847
  • Reputasi: 268
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #31 on: 05 September 2014, 11:31:54 AM »
"Orang sesat" yang dirujuk dalam sutta ini adalah terjemahan dari kata "moghapurisa", orang yang diliputi moha. Kadangkala istilah ini diterjemahkan juga sebagai orang dungu, orang bodoh.  Menurut hemat saya, penggunaan ungkapan "moghapurisa" tidak sekasar yang dibayangkan. Mungkin bisa dicari istilah Indonesia yang lebih sesuai?
Seorang bhikkhu dilarang menggunakan kata-kata kasar, ini ada dalam peraturan winaya. Demikian pula seorang Buddha takkan menggunakan kata-kata kasar.
Untuk di vinaya atau secara tradisi sendiri, apakah ada definisi tentang "kata-kata kasar" itu apa saja, Bhante? Sebab mungkin penilaian ini sangat mungkin berbeda-beda antar komunitas.

Offline BTY

  • Bhikkhu
  • Bukan Tamu
  • *****
  • Posts: 34
  • Reputasi: 17
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #32 on: 05 September 2014, 11:15:46 PM »
Definisi "berucapan kasar" (pharusa-vāca) dalam Dasa-Kusalakamma-Patha adalah :

 “Ia berucapan kasar. Ucapannya keras, kasar, membuat getir pihak lain, menyinggung perasaan pihak lain, menimbulkan kemarahan dan kegalauan. Seperti itulah ia berucap.” [A. 5:282-4; Paṭhamanirayasaggasuttaṃ]

Di mana faktor pelanggarannya ada tiga (ketiga syarat ini harus terpenuhi baru bisa dikatakan ucapan kasar) :
1.   akkositabbo paro   : pihak yang akan dicerca
2.   kupitacittaṃ   : pikiran marah
3.   akkosana      : pencercaan

Sedangkan dalam Vinaya, itu bisa dikategorikan sebagai pelanggaran pacittiya no. 2. Di sini tidak mengguna istilah pharusa-vāca (ucapan kasar), tetapi Omasavāda (ucapan yang menyinggung perasaan). Penjelasan pelanggarannya adalah sebagai berikut (dikutip dari "Buddhist Monastic Code" karya Bhikkhu Thanissaro :

 2. An insult is to be confessed.

An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person's feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhaṅga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors:

    1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the ten topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) listed below.
    2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu.
    3) Intention: One's motive is to humiliate him.

Effort. The Vibhaṅga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person's

    race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);
    name (You really are a Dick!);
    family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a b***h!);
    occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
    craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
    disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
    physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
    defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
    offenses (You liar! You thief!); or
    using an abusive form of address, such as, "You camel! You goat! You ass! You p*n*s! You vagina!" (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)

(The category of "offense" — which literally means "falling" — contains an interesting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally, "falling into the stream." Thus an insult along the lines of, "Some stream-winner you are!" would also fit under this category as well.)

These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu — topics for abuse — and appear in the following training rule as well.

As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: "You are X." It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅga defines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here.

Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement ("We're all a bunch of fools.") Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to ("There are camels among us"). Any remark of this sort, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭa regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not.

All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of a command — Go to hell! F--- off! etc. — and the question is whether these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54.

Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc 13.

Object. To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person — according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings — a dukkaṭa.

Intent. The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as "desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to make (him) abashed." If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person's race, etc., he incurs a dubbhāsita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense.

The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor — the target of one's insult knows, "He's insulting me" — but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhaṅga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one's breath, not intending to be heard — or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood — the motive would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one's words. But if for some reason that person doesn't hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one's words, one uses a slang term that is new to one's listener), there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty.

For this reason, whether the person addressed actually feels insulted by one's remarks is irrelevant in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pācittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhāsita even if the other person feels insulted.

Non-offenses. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person's race, etc., commits no offense if he is "aiming at Dhamma, aiming at (the person's) benefit (attha — this can also mean "the goal"), aiming at teaching." The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: "You are an untouchable. Don't do any evil. Don't be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune."

Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma. This would entail no offense, but one should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort.

Offline BTY

  • Bhikkhu
  • Bukan Tamu
  • *****
  • Posts: 34
  • Reputasi: 17
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #33 on: 05 September 2014, 11:19:10 PM »
Ya, saya pun berpendapat persepsi "ucapan kasar" tidak selalu sama bagi komunitas yang berbeda.

Offline K.K.

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 8.847
  • Reputasi: 268
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #34 on: 06 September 2014, 08:58:21 AM »
Definisi "berucapan kasar" (pharusa-vāca) dalam Dasa-Kusalakamma-Patha adalah :

 “Ia berucapan kasar. Ucapannya keras, kasar, membuat getir pihak lain, menyinggung perasaan pihak lain, menimbulkan kemarahan dan kegalauan. Seperti itulah ia berucap.” [A. 5:282-4; Paṭhamanirayasaggasuttaṃ]

Di mana faktor pelanggarannya ada tiga (ketiga syarat ini harus terpenuhi baru bisa dikatakan ucapan kasar) :
1.   akkositabbo paro   : pihak yang akan dicerca
2.   kupitacittaṃ   : pikiran marah
3.   akkosana      : pencercaan

Sedangkan dalam Vinaya, itu bisa dikategorikan sebagai pelanggaran pacittiya no. 2. Di sini tidak mengguna istilah pharusa-vāca (ucapan kasar), tetapi Omasavāda (ucapan yang menyinggung perasaan). Penjelasan pelanggarannya adalah sebagai berikut (dikutip dari "Buddhist Monastic Code" karya Bhikkhu Thanissaro :

 2. An insult is to be confessed.

An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person's feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhaṅga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors:

    1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the ten topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) listed below.
    2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu.
    3) Intention: One's motive is to humiliate him.

Effort. The Vibhaṅga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person's

    race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);
    name (You really are a Dick!);
    family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a b***h!);
    occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
    craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
    disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
    physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
    defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
    offenses (You liar! You thief!); or
    using an abusive form of address, such as, "You camel! You goat! You ass! You p*n*s! You vagina!" (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)

(The category of "offense" — which literally means "falling" — contains an interesting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally, "falling into the stream." Thus an insult along the lines of, "Some stream-winner you are!" would also fit under this category as well.)

These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu — topics for abuse — and appear in the following training rule as well.

As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: "You are X." It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅga defines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here.

Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement ("We're all a bunch of fools.") Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to ("There are camels among us"). Any remark of this sort, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭa regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not.

All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of a command — Go to hell! F--- off! etc. — and the question is whether these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54.

Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc 13.

Object. To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person — according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings — a dukkaṭa.

Intent. The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as "desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to make (him) abashed." If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person's race, etc., he incurs a dubbhāsita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense.

The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor — the target of one's insult knows, "He's insulting me" — but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhaṅga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one's breath, not intending to be heard — or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood — the motive would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one's words. But if for some reason that person doesn't hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one's words, one uses a slang term that is new to one's listener), there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty.

For this reason, whether the person addressed actually feels insulted by one's remarks is irrelevant in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pācittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhāsita even if the other person feels insulted.

Non-offenses. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person's race, etc., commits no offense if he is "aiming at Dhamma, aiming at (the person's) benefit (attha — this can also mean "the goal"), aiming at teaching." The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: "You are an untouchable. Don't do any evil. Don't be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune."

Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma. This would entail no offense, but one should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort.
Terima kasih untuk infonya yang detail, Bhante.

Untuk faktornya itu harus ada "pikiran marah". Kalau seandainya orang mengucapkan salah satu dari 10 kategori penghinaan, tapi bukan dari pikiran marah namun memang menikmati bullying, apakah jadinya termasuk pisuna-vaca atau kategori lainnya?


Offline Shasika

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 2.152
  • Reputasi: 101
  • Gender: Female
  • Semoga semua mahluk berbahagia
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #35 on: 06 September 2014, 10:31:49 AM »
Definisi "berucapan kasar" (pharusa-vāca) dalam Dasa-Kusalakamma-Patha adalah :

 “Ia berucapan kasar. Ucapannya keras, kasar, membuat getir pihak lain, menyinggung perasaan pihak lain, menimbulkan kemarahan dan kegalauan. Seperti itulah ia berucap.” [A. 5:282-4; Paṭhamanirayasaggasuttaṃ]

Di mana faktor pelanggarannya ada tiga (ketiga syarat ini harus terpenuhi baru bisa dikatakan ucapan kasar) :
1.   akkositabbo paro   : pihak yang akan dicerca
2.   kupitacittaṃ   : pikiran marah
3.   akkosana      : pencercaan

Sedangkan dalam Vinaya, itu bisa dikategorikan sebagai pelanggaran pacittiya no. 2. Di sini tidak mengguna istilah pharusa-vāca (ucapan kasar), tetapi Omasavāda (ucapan yang menyinggung perasaan). Penjelasan pelanggarannya adalah sebagai berikut (dikutip dari "Buddhist Monastic Code" karya Bhikkhu Thanissaro :

 2. An insult is to be confessed.

An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person's feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhaṅga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors:

    1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the ten topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) listed below.
    2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu.
    3) Intention: One's motive is to humiliate him.

Effort. The Vibhaṅga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person's

    race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);
    name (You really are a Dick!);
    family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a b***h!);
    occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
    craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
    disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
    physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
    defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
    offenses (You liar! You thief!); or
    using an abusive form of address, such as, "You camel! You goat! You ass! You p*n*s! You vagina!" (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)

(The category of "offense" — which literally means "falling" — contains an interesting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally, "falling into the stream." Thus an insult along the lines of, "Some stream-winner you are!" would also fit under this category as well.)

These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu — topics for abuse — and appear in the following training rule as well.

As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: "You are X." It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅga defines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here.

Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement ("We're all a bunch of fools.") Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to ("There are camels among us"). Any remark of this sort, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭa regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not.

All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of a command — Go to hell! F--- off! etc. — and the question is whether these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54.

Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc 13.

Object. To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person — according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings — a dukkaṭa.

Intent. The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as "desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to make (him) abashed." If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person's race, etc., he incurs a dubbhāsita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense.

The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor — the target of one's insult knows, "He's insulting me" — but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhaṅga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one's breath, not intending to be heard — or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood — the motive would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one's words. But if for some reason that person doesn't hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one's words, one uses a slang term that is new to one's listener), there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty.

For this reason, whether the person addressed actually feels insulted by one's remarks is irrelevant in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pācittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhāsita even if the other person feels insulted.

Non-offenses. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person's race, etc., commits no offense if he is "aiming at Dhamma, aiming at (the person's) benefit (attha — this can also mean "the goal"), aiming at teaching." The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: "You are an untouchable. Don't do any evil. Don't be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune."

Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma. This would entail no offense, but one should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort.
Anumodana bhante...._/\_

Mohon kesediaan bhante untuk terus membimbing kami disini, karena kami sangat membutuhkan bimbingan bhante.
+1 untuk bhante jangan dipandang sbg saya menyogok bhante yaaa.... ;D

Based on this "Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma." always use to cover his mistakes, that he insults others. He is a monk, who will dares to report about his conducts ?

Pls, dont misunderstand me bhante, might this is occured in society.

Namaskara.
 _/\_
I'm an ordinary human only

Offline BTY

  • Bhikkhu
  • Bukan Tamu
  • *****
  • Posts: 34
  • Reputasi: 17
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #36 on: 09 September 2014, 08:42:29 AM »
 [at]  K. K. : kalau saya tidak salah mengerti, sebagaimana yang dijelaskan B. Thanissaro di atas, 'bullying' termasuk pelanggaran dubbhasita.

 [at]  Shasika : oleh karena itu B. Thanissaro mengatakan "One should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort."

Asal gratifikasi dilaporkan ke KPK, boleh saja :-)

Offline wijananda

  • Teman
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Reputasi: -10
  • brahmajala. sutra
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #37 on: 09 September 2014, 08:05:40 PM »
Pak biksu / bikkhu
1. Apa benar bapak biksu atau bikhu.
2. Jika bapak biksu memakai bajunya terbalik
     Dalam arti yang terbuka sebelah kiri.
     Apakah ini bisa dikatakan buta karena itu
     Diartikan tersesat.
     Atau bodoh dalam artian  perhatian kurang
     Sehingga terbalik.
3. Bapak biksu jgn mudah marah ya
     Ini pertanyaan serius
     

Offline Shasika

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 2.152
  • Reputasi: 101
  • Gender: Female
  • Semoga semua mahluk berbahagia
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #38 on: 09 September 2014, 09:53:54 PM »
[at]  K. K. : kalau saya tidak salah mengerti, sebagaimana yang dijelaskan B. Thanissaro di atas, 'bullying' termasuk pelanggaran dubbhasita.

 [at]  Shasika : oleh karena itu B. Thanissaro mengatakan "One should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort."

Asal gratifikasi dilaporkan ke KPK, boleh saja :-)
Ama Bhante...
Namaskara.

***Bhante apabila ada pertanyaan2 dari saya yang agak kurang sopan, mohon maaf ya bhante, tapi karena memang apa2 yang saya tanyakan adalah yang saya alami sendiri..._/\_
I'm an ordinary human only

Offline wijananda

  • Teman
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Reputasi: -10
  • brahmajala. sutra
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #39 on: 10 September 2014, 02:48:06 AM »
Pak biksu maap ya
Jika ada tulisan yg baik
Didepan pak biksu
Tapi kurang jelek
Dibelakang pak biksu

Offline siJeffrey2

  • Bukan Tamu
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Reputasi: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • Semoga semua mahluk berbahagia
"Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #40 on: 16 February 2017, 07:54:23 AM »
trus apa gunanya orang kulit hitam meluk islam..? mereka gak tau ya kayaknya kl islam tuh rasis sama mereka...

Offline K.K.

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 8.847
  • Reputasi: 268
Re: "Orang sesat" dalam MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
« Reply #41 on: 03 March 2017, 04:55:20 PM »
trus apa gunanya orang kulit hitam meluk islam..? mereka gak tau ya kayaknya kl islam tuh rasis sama mereka...
Di sini tidak membahas Islam, orang kulit hitam, ataupun rasisme. Mohon tidak melebar ke mana-mana.