Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Doctrinal Buddhists have to cherry pick from their texts as much as Christians in order to remain consistent.
That was not cherry-picking, though. It was pointing out the framework in which the entire sutra is to be interpreted. And that should have been obvious to a careful reader. I wish you would take the time to understand what we are saying, instead of shooting from the hip with the first objection you come up with. You seem to assume that we are unreasonable, just because we disagree with you.
Also I am obviously not a doctrinal Buddhist. This is clearly a faulty projection.
Can you show me where in any text it says this? That is, where it says they are metapore rather than supposed supernatural beings.
I am not qualified to do this, and don't really care about it. It's what I learned from my teacher, and verified by my own experience. I think it's traditionally been part of the oral tradition of Buddhist practice. I think one of the problems with the Enlightenment has been a tendency to reify the textual over the oral components of cultural traditions, when it's really the oral component which matters most. However, Mundus and Dhatu take more of an interest in what the scriptures say, and may be able to demonstrate this more clearly. For what it's worth, I think it does come through fairly clearly in the Lion's Roar sutra.
Do you deny that many Buddhist do believe in Devas and Titans and magical realms as being actual things?
I don't care what "many Buddhists" believe. As I told you at the start, I agree that Buddhism, and the scriptures in particular, are probably corruptions of what the Buddha taught. It's up to us to make sense of them.
Its certainly more complex! But that doesn't mean its right:) Escpially when its inconsistent whereas core Dharma isn't. Do you believe in ockhams Razor and the Law of Noncontradiction?
If you actually took the time to understand it, you would see that the position Mundus, Dhatu and I have been describing is not inconsistent. It just doesn't take the scriptures literally.
Thank you for your time, I must say I am finding this very helpful and clarifying:) I hope you are:)
Not in the least. Your consistently willfully ignorant, self-centered behavior in this conversation demonstrates the bankruptcy of your views more clearly than any argument about Buddhist theory and practice ever could.
>>>I wish you would take the time to understand what we are saying, instead of shooting from the hip with the first objection you come up with.
We must all be guilty of that then:)
>>>You seem to assume that we are unreasonable, just because we disagree with you.
No, I assume you are unreasonable because you do not show me how you are using reason rather than doctrine:)
>>>Also I am obviously not a doctrinal Buddhist. This is clearly a faulty projection.
Super, so you are happy to abandon all of the texts and try to see Dharma from nothing, as the Buddha did?
This is what I have spent my time as a “Buddhist” doing (Maybe not the first couple of years whiloe I was trying to make sense of the intractable mess that is the cannons and the schools)
>>>Quite so. That's what I mean by "this is phenomenonlogical, not ontological."
But that doesn’t mean there is no ontological aspect to Dharma, at all, quite the contrary. That is my point. I am simply not able to base my entire viewof life and reality on my experiences, withered deep in meditation or chatting on forums or readings ancient texts. If you are, that’s great, you are lucky.
>>>>I am not qualified to do this, and don't really care about it.
But wait, you assert something with authority, but when asked to qualify that you agree there is no authority you are aware of.
That is inconsistent:) See?
>>>I think one of the problems with the Enlightenment has been a tendency to reify the textual over the oral components of cultural traditions, when it's really the oral component which matters most.
Again, why do you believe that? There is simply ZERO evidence about any of the oral tradition of Buddhism until hundreds of years after his death. Doesnt that at least perplex you?
It has me from the moment I first started on this path.
Your view doesn’t make sense to me. It seems irrational. Either I am missing something or you are:)
>>>I don't care what "many Buddhists" believe.
Again, why not. You are walking the same path, unless you think you are right and they are wrong in which case I wonder if you can tell me why?
I think I am right, or at least more right than the doctrinal Buddhists, because I make no bold claims, no mystical claims , no esoteric claims. I believe Dharma is demonstrably simple and it has been hijacked by mystics, the very people the Buddha seems to be warning us against:)
>>>As I told you at the start, I agree that Buddhism, and the scriptures in particular, are probably corruptions of what the Buddha taught. It's up to us to make sense of them.
At last! We agree!:) How do you make sense of them then? What to you jettison and what do you keep? What’s your criteria?
Mine is certainty. I am certain of annica, anataman, dukka, magga. My reason for certainty is dependent origination (general not human suffering and not mere conditionality.)
>>>If you actually took the time to understand it, you would see that the position Mundus, Dhatu and I have been describing is not inconsistent.
Ummm, excuse me, i have spent about 12 of the last 48 hours reading them and you, thinking about what was said and reading the long essays and sutras you have been pointing me to. My conviction becomes stronger not weaker, but please don’t try to belittle my endeavours here. I would love there to me more to life than this, but there isn’t:)
>>>Not in the least. Your consistently willfully ignorant, self-centered behavior in this conversation demonstrate the bankruptcy of your views more clearly than any argument about Buddhist theory and practice ever could.
Wow. I can only think i have piqued some doubt to get that kind of reaction. You mistake my refusal to accept without reason and certainty as "willfull ignorance" and try to insult me as well...
That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along.
And no, it's not your "refusal to accept," it's your continually misinterpreting carefully expressed ideas, which a careful reader would avoid, and which your last post is also full of. If your posts here really are the result of twelve hours' attention, a course in remedial reading comprehension would not go astray.
That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along.
And no, it's not your "refusal to accept," it's your continually misinterpreting carefully expressed ideas, which a careful reader would avoid, and which your last post is also full of. If your posts here really are the result of twelve hours' attention, a course in remedial reading comprehension would not go astray.
Some may think when you start getting insulted, as you keep doing to me, its time to stop. I dont mind that. But when you refuse to answer my questions and address my points, espcially when I have at least tried to answer each of yours, then its time:)
You seem to want some kind of victory, I just want truth. I concede! You win! I am a stupid ignorant man.
Clearly the suttras are connected with The Buddha! I am not saying they are not. i am saying they have been corrupted and it is us to us to find out whats Dharma and what is not. And the only way to do that is to go back to the first principle.
Mat
The suttas have been explained to you. Obviously, to you, reading the suttas is like reading Chinese or whatever language one is illiterate in.
Funny how you must borrow phrases like Dependent Origination from the suttas and even try to quote the Kalama Sutta.
Your contradiction is merely that.
Better for the student to learn than try to teach.
Not looking for any kind of victory, but this isn't even a respectful conversation.
Kindly go back through it and see who has dealt the personal insults, not me.
I respect you, I do not respect the distortions of squabbling monks (these are the reasons for the Councils. I urge you look to the history here, its crucially important if you wish to bestow the texts with even a modicum authority.)
I do not respect the distortions of squabbling monks (these are the reasons for the Councils. I urge you look to the history here, its crucially important if you wish to bestow the texts with even a modicum authority.)
Your urging is futile because you are urging about speculative & irrelevent matters.
Those who have worked out the Dhamma urge their spiritual companions to the cessation of suffering.
It sounds like you are a "Rebel Without a Cause", "Rebelling Within The Prison".
I disagree. I think it shows how it all arises, including The Three Marks and all they entail.
I advised you at the very beginning, the three marks are evident in Dependent Origination. However, only in a minor way. This is because the skilled practitioner has stopped the spinning of Dependent Origination.
To see directly, clearly & deeply the Three Marks, one does not use Dependent Origination as the primary object of insight meditation. One starts with the in & out breathing and then moves onwards & upwards with more subtle (mental) aggregates.
Your connection of Dependent Origination with the Three Marks is merely intellectual or theoretical. To that degree, it is correct.
Kindly go back through it and see who has dealt the personal insults, not me.
Just because something hurts your feelings, that doesn't mean it's intended as an insult. You are demonstrably misapprehending clearly expressed ideas. That is either a failure of comprehension, or a failure of personal integrity.
I learned something about flawed patterns of communication.
Yes, I guess forums are renowned for this. I'm sure if we were all sitting in a circle talking in turn it would have been more productive and cooperative and less competitive.
I have discussed similar issues with Monks, Nuns and devout lay Buddhists in person and its always been civil:)
after reading this thread I find this statement hard to believe.
I know I know! As said, I am not proud at the way I got competitive (thought not petty and insulting, as some), but that's what happens when you have contrasting views in a medium where its all too easy to get excited.
I am utterly aware I have no ego. I am utterly aware of the illusion of ego and how it can damage clarity. Dukka in action:) (Dukka is action)
Is it possible you simply don't have the capacity to understand this horses ass?
Quite possible, but the only conclusion anyone is going to draw from this thread is that you either can't understand or have willfully ignored clear explanations of D.O.
Quite possible, but the only conclusion anyone is going to draw from this thread is that you either can't understand or have willfully ignored clear explanations of D.O.
Calming down now:) I haven't wilfully ignored anything (that's just silly) so we must assume that I can't understand. I have tried, and failed. So I will go with my Wrong View, and you with your Right View and let us go in peace:)
Maybe you should abandon the suttras for a while and see what you can work out about Dharma all on your own, like The Buddha did, like I have.
You have actually declared yourself, numerous times, as the Metteyya. :hohum: Please show some humility. You have not worked anything out on your own. You have taken concepts from the suttas. But then you suggest people here are just sutta-thumpers when they try to explain the validity and significance of another concept in the suttas, which is hypocritical.
You are victim to the dominating hegemony of religion, as much as Christians or any other religion.
Only as much as you are. Please note that I only cite the suttas for things I have validated to be true through personal practice, and am not citing them blindly:
"That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along."
And as such this ^ is what Dhamma and I have been saying all along as well. :hohum:
I will answer your questions as you requested but after this, you will have to make the effort to answer your own questions about the suttas, as they are available to you just as they are to me, and you can only validate what we've said when you make the effort to do so yourself through practice.
(1) How do the 12 Nidanas explain the distinction between the Dukka entailed by Annica and that entailed by Anataman?
:eek: The issue here is that you misunderstsand the source of dukkha to begin with. And I believe you might misunderstand the word dukkha as well. Firstly, dukkha refers to mental suffering specifically. So when you agreed earlier that the Buddha taught only thing, and that is dukkha and the quenching of dukkha, you agreed that he taught only the quenching of mental suffering.
Iddapaccayatta (This/That Conditionality), as Dhamma said, occurs in all systems. You are not wrong about that. But as Buddhists we're specifically concerned with how dukkha is conditioned, and this is why paticcasummupada (what we as Buddhists call "Dependent Origination," which for our purpose is the 12 Nidanas, a subset of iddapaccayatta) is so crucial to our practice and is rightly called the Highest Teaching:
"Entailed by anatta"? :eek: Not fully seeinganatta is the source ofdukkhabecause ofanicca and it's as "simple" as that. Anatta is not just "this is not self" or "this is not I," but "this is not mine" as well.
If I buy a car, it will eventually break down, decay... I will experience dukkha because it's "my car." You will not experience dukkha because it is not your car, it is not something you've built your self-identification around. Likewise, that car would have eventually ended up like that anyway, it was inevitable, and had I not bought it, I would not experience dukkha.
As you can see, anicca is not inherently negative as you suggest, it does not inherently cause dukkha. It's only through self-identification that we experience dukkha. This is what the 12 Nidanas illustrate accurately.
(2) How do the 12 Nidanas explain why it is necessarily the case that all things (there is no distinction between thing and contingent thing in Dharmic reality, I believe) are impermanent, empty, interconnected and tending towards the inevitable negative?
The 12 Nidanas are not meant to explain this directly, as Dhamma already explained, yet anicca and anatta can clearly be seen within it. However, impermanence is death, and the explanation that it "tends towards the inevitable negative" is the entire point of this teaching; it tends towards the negative because of self-identification, because of not fully realizing anatta. Please observe all dukkha you experience and see for yourself if this is the ultimate truth or not. Until you've paid a visit to your meditation mat to observe this truth firsthand, this discussion is pointless.
(3) Why is ignorance not mentioned here, I tried to see in the pali (avijja?) but that doenst make sense. It is in most other descriptions of the 12 Nidanyas.
Because the 12 Nidanas are laid out in various ways, depending on the teaching, for the sake of clarity... It is because you have only read hearsay rather than look at the original theory that you do not know this. If you do not see the role ignorance plays in this sutta, then... :hohum:
(4) I haven't read through the Majima Nikaya but in Sutra 79 verse 7 (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi) it says this "I shall teach you the Dhamma: When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this,that ceases." What do you say to this? It seems incompatible with your view?
How does that seem incompatible? :eek2: No one has denied that teaching. :eek2: The 12 Nidanas are a specific teaching of Conditionality and it's relevence to our practice. This is shown in, for example, the Assutava Sutta.
If you read the rest of the very sutta you just cited, you will notice...
"With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is pleasing to me': That view of theirs is close to being impassioned, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging."
"With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, 'All is pleasing to me': A wise person among them considers that 'If I were to grasp and insist firmly on this view of mine that "All is pleasing to me," and to state that "Only this is true, all else is worthless," I would clash with two — the brahman or contemplative who is of the view, of the opinion that "All is not pleasing to me" and the brahman or contemplative who is of the view, of the opinion that "A part is pleasing to me; a part is not pleasing to me." I would clash with these two. Where there is a clash, there is dispute. Where there is a dispute, quarreling. Where there is quarreling, annoyance. Where there is annoyance, frustration.' Envisioning for himself clash, dispute, quarreling, annoyance, frustration, he both abandons that view and does not cling to another view. Thus there is the abandoning of these views; thus there is the relinquishing of these views.
"Seeing this, an instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with pleasant feeling, disenchanted with painful feeling, disenchanted with neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. From dispassion, he is released [Nibbana]. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' A monk whose mind is thus released does not take sides with anyone, does not dispute with
This is admittedly your view, thus you cannot be Enlightened, as you still cling, which is why you have never tasted freedom from dukkha. :buck: Please don't cherry-pick, and read in context.
(5) " 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'" but elsewhere we are told that Conciousness is the mind and the body.
Instead of saying "elsewhere" please cite actual examples so I know exactly what you're refering to.
Edit - I just noticed an earlier post:
"Consciousness depends on mental formations in the Nidanas yet in the Maha Nidana Sutra (Quoted from Pallihakara) Buddha says to Anada "If asked what constitutes consciousness, you should answer it is the mind and body."
How about you actually provide direct quotations? The sutta actually says: "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.'"
Once again, you demonstrate poor reading comprehension.
If you have read any of the other suttas you would find that it's taught that consciousness arises when a sense organ and the associated neuro-sensory system meets a "sense object" which leads to the corresponding form of consciousness, which is called "Contact." Consciousness can be tainted as described in that very sutta as the Seven Stations of Consciousness, as Dhamma's example has already illustrated, and thus consciousness and mind-and-body mutually condition each other. So in the 12 Nidanas as they are traditionally presented you technically see consciousness coming up twice. There is no contradiction.
(6) What is bhavo in the English? Its in the Pali.
Mat, please be curteous and provide the full sentence next time rather than pulling incomplete conjugations out and with no context. Bhava means "becoming" (the 9th Nidana). Dhamma explained what this means in his example earlier.
All possible beings expeirnce Dukka in various ways.
Please provide an example outside of what the 12 Nidanas explains. Your vagueness shows your lack of true understanding of the arising of dukkha.
You say it is not about literal rebirth, and I assumed you meant that like me you do not belive in majic and the supernatural. Yet this sutra recalls numerous times to concepts such as:
Fivebells addressed part of these questions already, and:
Again, you seem forced to cherry pick?
I am not the one who is cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is reading one sutta, and no others. Cherry-picking is not reading a sutta in context and even failing to do so even after a curteous Fivebells has tried to assist you. Cherry-picking is literally taking a handful of concepts that originated in the suttas without paying any attention to what the suttas actually say about them, and redifining them for your own purpose. I cannot force you to read the suttas, and to put everything in perspective. Even those who believe he taught literal rebirth agree that one has to consider the audience he was teaching.
For our purposes, the realms are psychological realms. You can see this if you read other suttas such as the Khana Sutta (you asked for proof, so there you go, since Fivebells quoting the sutta itself and asking you to read everything in context wasn't sufficient). And as another poster quoted at one time, addressing why he taught literal rebirth to some people:
"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
MN 68
If you actually wish to learn about this, I suggest you refer to this Thread. I will not respond to any further questions regarding why the Buddha taught literal rebirth; search the forums if you want to learn more. If you are attempting to disprove a concept that was originally presented in the suttas, and disprove our personal experiences, then please do your own research, and not expect the answers to be spoonfed to you by those you wish to disprove when you have no sincere desire to understand them in the first place.
Do you believe in Devas and transmigration?
Do you believe, as I believe and I am sure the Buddha belived, that this is our only life, it is short and rare and special and empty and all we can do to maximise the happiness of ourselves and others by following and teaching Dharma?
I already explained to you my position and that the Buddha's teachings are concerned with the here-and-now which is why fully grasping the 12 Nidanas is so crucial. The Buddha was unconcerned with yours or anyone else's speculative views on life after death; it just doesn't matter.
In order to stop the circles I'm not going to reply to anything to do with the sutras from now on. I renounce them as being the definitive word or teachings of The Buddha for the following reasons:
1) They were not written down until 100BC, at least 400 years after the death of the Buddha and I simply believe it impossible that they could have been carried on verbatim, even with this idea of "high redundancy" due to the number of monks maintaining the verbal tradition.
2) They were written down 1500 miles away from where the Buddha lived.
3) They cannot possibly be the teachings of one man in one lifetime just by the sheer quantity of text.
4) They were written in a Script (Pali) for a language that the Buddha didn't speak (Magadhi Prakrit)
5) There are no original (2000 year old) versions of the Suttras to compare with, they are copies of copies. I am happy to ignore this reason, but its significant.
7) They are internally inconsistent . I am happy to ignore this reason, but its significant.
So, does that mean I cannot be a Buddhist? No, it means though I am not going to except anything unless it can be shown to be by experience, science or reason and without inconsistency.
Now I am clear on that, I'll answer your points:)
You have actually declared yourself, numerous times, as the Metteyya. :hohum: Please show some humility.
Well, I agree it would be HUGELY arrogant of me to say I was enlightened if by enlightenment you mean something deeper than my certainty in Dharma.That would have a messianic stink about it for sure:)
But I don't, I think Dharma is all that flows from asking "What is true of all realities and how do these truths effect the human condition?"
And the answer to this question leads me to a world view grounded in certainty, from the principle of conditionality and noncontradiction to the psychological, moral and philosophical truths of the Noble Eightfold path.
That is my enlightenment. Pretty unimpressive, really. For me understandaing emptiness and impermanence (Which I believe I do) leads directly into my moral/mental life and back.
Its simple:) Maybe that's not the enlightenment you are looking for, but this to me, this gift of Dharma is the most wonderful gift.
>>>You have not worked anything out on your own.
Read the end of my blog post that started this and tell me which of your special sutras its from please, If you cant, I will assume that wasnt your reason talking.
>>>You have taken concepts from the suttas.
I will still use concepts from the sutras, the stuff that is certain! That's my whole point! I believe in kama, dukka, sukka magga , anica... etc But only because I can explain how they fit togther.
You might like to see this post I wrote last year on this:
In the same way I think the KS is wonderful, not because its a Suttra but because its the first exposition of rational methodology and would be agreed on by pretty much every scientist.
>>>"That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along."
Sure, that's great. Do you renounce the suttras too?
Even if you do, there is a problem, because if you cant convey what that experince,means to me in language, like the Buddha must have if we assume he taught anyone, then I am left to believe that your personal experience of these truths you cant explain is just "inner created" rather than any underlying truth of the kind I believe I have found.
And so why should I differentiate your profound experience from that of Carlos Castenada or some Hippy acid head.
Unless you have reason to ground, I am just not satisfied you have anything profound:)
>>>Firstly, dukkha refers to mental suffering specifically.
We agree we have no authority on any of the doctrine, so why do you assume you do here? This is especially true of the complex composite Dharmic terms as we have no idea what the Buddha wouldhave used.
So what can we do? All we can do is see what things true of reality match what Dukka might be. Is there anything "out there" as a candidate? yes! The inevitable negativity of possible systems, which, in selfaware sentient systems manifests as the kind of negativity that the english translations of the pali come out as: suffering, strain, anguish.
But I see everything as systems, so for me a Star is subject to Dukka, but because its simple the Dukka doesn't have the emergent human qualities we experience. Dukka and the expericne of Dukka are interchanable, but only with sentient systems.
>>>this is why paticcasummupada (what we as Buddhists call "Dependent Origination,"
We get down to scripture with this issue, because its simply a matter of label and translation. You cannot possibly know what the Buddha called what. But, again, istnt it clear, isnt it in the name of the Pali, its about how things depend on other things to come into being. Dont forget others call it "conditioned genesist" etc
I am starting tothink I have completely misunderstood you and the others here. Are you really saying this squabble is about the literal meaning of the pali term "paticcasummupada"? Please! No! I want my time back!
If that's what your saying, then whatever, yes , pick a term and ill use it. Ykes!
My point is about the foundational principle that the Buddha discovered and how it is true of all things.
If I buy a car, it will eventually break down, decay... I will experience dukkha because it's "my car." You will not experience dukkha because it is not your car, it is not something you've built your self-identification around. Likewise, that car would have eventually ended up like that anyway, it was inevitable, and had I not bought it, I would not experience dukkha.
I am sorry, I find that example unworkable. If a System S expences Dukka because of a condition C then S must be connected with C. In your example there is no connection between me and your car.
Please provide an example outside of what the 12 Nidanas explains. Your vagueness shows your lack of true understanding of the arising of dukkha.
Look, I have told you how I see Dukka, and if you believe I'm mistaken, no problemo. But If you actually want to show me I am wrong, then you have to show me clearly using just reason, not your sutras and not your experience.
The Buddha was unconcerned with yours or anyone else's speculative views on life after death
You cannot possibly know this, it must be your opinion, which you are very entitled to:) It seems you have strong opinions, and wonderful experiences in nibbana (Whats it like in there?), but I want more.
I want the Dharma the Buddha found in one night (or day) and clearly must have taught to many in a few moments. That's what I want, not the regujitations of thousands of monks who we know historically have expanded (read bloated and corrupted) what I am certain was a simple enlightenment.
Life is short, there is nothing else than this, I would love there to be but I am certain this is it. I am certain because of Dharma. And I am certain that the best way I can live this life is that of the Noble Eightfold Path, seeking truth, cultivating compassion, love and peace. Then I will die, and that is that, but I will be sure I have lived the best life I could have. For me that surety is enlightemnet.
It seems you have strong opinions, and wonderful experiences in nibbana (Whats it like in there?), but I want more.
You, friend, are the only one claiming enlightenment.
>>>Firstly, dukkha refers to mental suffering specifically.
We agree we have no authority on any of the doctrine, so why do you assume you do here?
But I see everything as systems, so for me a Star is subject to Dukka
Oh boy.
Are you really saying this squabble is about the literal meaning of the pali term "paticcasummupada"? Please! No! I want my time back!
If that's what your saying, then whatever, yes , pick a term and ill use it. Ykes!
No, that isn't what this is over. It's over what the Highest Teaching of the Buddha is. Don't worry, we still disagree with you, you haven't wasted your time.
In order to stop the circles I'm not going to reply to anything to do with the sutras from now on. I renounce them as being the definitive word or teachings of The Buddha for the following reasons
That's fine. But please remove the concepts of Dependent Origination, Conditionality, anicca, anatta, and dukkha from the essay you linked to, then, as they were taken from the suttas.
That's fine. But please remove the concepts of Dependent Origination, Conditionality, anicca, anatta, and dukkha from the essay you linked to, then, as they were taken from the suttas.
Take care.
How rude, you simply didn't read my last post and I spent an age on it:(
I know you didn't read it because I explain which Dharmic concepts I use, and why. ie, Those I can be certain of.
I guess you just "did a runner":(
Anyways, even against your rudeness, I wish you well:)
How rude, you simply didn't read my last post and I spent an age on it:(
I know you didn't read it because I explain which Dharmic concepts I use, and why. ie, Those I can be certain of.
I guess you just "did a runner":(
Anyways, even against your rudeness,
You are the one who asked me roughly five million questions or so about the sutta you read, then said you didn't care or want to bother with it after I took the time to answer you. Please consider if you meant to direct the above comment at yourself rather than me.
If you are happy, then great, that's wonderful. But we have the teaching you presented already, plus another one that GREATLY benefits us in a much more significant way. Now why would you expect any Buddhist to throw that teaching away? :eek2:
You came and asked to be proven wrong, but in fact you were hoping to have your ego stroked. You have taken concepts from the suttas, renamed them, and declared that you discovered this unbelievable truth on your own and that you are the Metteyya. Everyone here has been aware of the truth of Conditionality for a long time now, so unfortunately we are not impressed. If knowing Conditionality is enlightenment, then we are glad you finally caught up with us. :buck: If you ever decide there might be something more to learn, feel free to look this Thread over again.
I renounce them [the suttas] as being the definitive word or teachings of The Buddha for the following reasons:
Would you please actually read what I say? We don't disagree, for goodness sake.
Preacher>>>
Hello irony.
Yes, but its been subsumed in mumbojobo.
Is "mumbojobo" a scientific term?
No, it hasn't been subsumed in anything. Your explanation:
If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I walk up to your door, I will be on your doorstep.
If I am never on your doorstep, I will never be knocking on your door.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.
was brutally stripped and mutilated from the very suttas you continue to urinate all over :buck::
When there is this, there is that,
When there is not this, there is not that.
When this arises, that arises.
When this ceases, that ceases.
[Samyutta Nikaya 12.37]
We have been more than aware of this universal fact for a long time, Mat. We have all said numerous times in this Thread that Conditionality has been around "since the Big Bang" as you put it, and that it applies to everything; this is simple fact that I think absolutely every Buddhist agrees on and is aware of. You give yourself too much credit. Once again, if you feel someday there might be something more to learn, feel free to come back to this Thread.
We do, because you think the 12 Nidanyas are foundational based on "your experience."
Please think about what I say as well:)
>>Is "mumbojobo" a scientific term?
yes, it means irrational, unproven, inconsistent, unjustified, bloated, erronious... etc
>>>>was brutally stripped and mutilated from the very suttas you continue to urinate all over
NO NO NO NO! LOL
Are you joking? I am not saying I CAME UP WITH DO. The Buddha did. Its in the sutra, simply stated and compeltelyunquestionable (Un like the 12 Nidanyas):
When there is this, there is that,
When there is not this, there is not that.
When this arises, that arises.
When this ceases, that ceases.
My doorstep example was clearly an example. Accuse me of stupidity, sure, but not plagiarism.
>>>We have all said a numerous in this Thread that Conditionality has been around "since the Big Bang" as you put it, and that it applies to everything; this is simple fact that I think absolutely every Buddhist agrees on and is aware of.
Did you read this section? I think I see why DO (foundational) leads to DUKKA, from first principles:
Why is Dependent Origination Dharma?
I outlined here about the Three Marks of Existence, Annica, Anataman and Dukka, and how all of Dharma flows from them. I belive when you understand Dependent origination it is possible to see how these Three Marks are necessarily the case. Even now after many years thinking about this it hurts my head to see it all as one body of truth. I think this is why Meditation is considered so important to Dharma practice, as it may offer a way to apprehend these conceptual structures outside of the rigid lingustic structures we are used to relying on. But here goes:
Annica – All things are impermanent
Because all conditioned things originate within this transitive web of causation it follows that there is nothing to remain a constant. There is no thing that is isolated from the changes that flow following the principle of Dependent Origination. This applies from the neurons in my brain that make my knuckles tap on your door to the sound wave you hear and everything that follows from that and leads up to that.
As soon as an event happens, as soon as a thing changes, it is gone and the next change is happening, the effect becomes a new cause. And so on. And so on.
All conditioned things are impermanent. Everything is change.
Anataman – There are no objects/egos/souls
Because all things (systems, events..) are conditioned things it follows that there can be no thing that is isolated from the web of causation and equally no thing that appears from nowhere within the web of causation (QM randomness aside?). If Dependent origination is true in all possible realities then all possible realities are consistent. Consistent interconnectedness and impermanence preclude the possibility of their being something that is excluded from interconnectedness (a distinct thing) or immune to impermanence (an eternal thing.)
Ontologically impermanence and interconnectedness manifest in the impossibility of anomalous things, like miracles and souls. Psychologically impermanence and interconnectedness preclude the possibility of a constant distinct self/ego. There are no distinct objects in mind our world, however the illusions of perspective may make things seem to the contrary.
Dukka –Negativity/Suffering/Decay is Inevitable
Consider a deck of cards arranged neatly in suits and imagine the order changing (shuffling) as all things do. Any change will be a change away from that order, and, in addition, the probability increasingly decreases the more the deck is shuffled that it will to the original neat order. The deck of cards has a finite possibility space and the vastest extent of that space is change away from order not towards
The same is true of all systems that constitute reality; change will take place in a finite possibility space. In physical terms this fact is captured by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In economic terms by the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. In human terms by realisations such as “the more of Great Thing X you have, the less great X becomes.” Change reduces the possibility space and if that space is valued by some other agent (like you) then change tends towards the negative.
These kinds of realisations are the opposite of difficult, if dogs could think like us, they would think the same. It’s not just that all things change but that most change tends towards the negative. The Buddha realised that this fact was self-evident. Moreover, when the inevitable negative was apprehended by sentient beings with qualitative experiences (like you) the realisation, conscious or not, will be bound to create negative experiences in the being.
This is why we suffer, the Buddha thought; because we constantly crave for the inevitable negative to not be the case. Accepting our impermanence and the impermanence of our good experiences is one thing but clinging to the hope that that may not be the case is fundamentally going to only bear bitter fruit. It cannot be any other way.
Dukka applies to solar systems and ecosystems and air-conditioning systems, but where it solidifies into suffering and strain is when the inevitable negative is apprehended by sentient systems, just like me, just like you. The only way to lessen the negativity of the inevitable negative in ourselves is to end attachment to transient things and to remove ignorance about the ontological status of things (ego, object, others...) and see the world as it really is. The method he reasoned from these realisations was to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and embrace the transitive and the inevitable negative.
___
What is wrong with my reasoning?
I am not interested in your opinons, or mine, or anyones. just reason, regarding these foundational truths.
The part where you annihilated persons because you got a little excited about the fact that things are momentary?
That's not even selflessness, but if it were, it would still be only the grossest meaning of selflessness.
Consider a deck of cards arranged neatly in suits and imagine the order changing (shuffling) as all things do. Any change will be a change away from that order, and, in addition, the probability increasingly decreases the more the deck is shuffled that it will to the original neat order.
So there's still something undergoing change. That means something endures and is therefore permanent.. at least for a while until its destruction.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">We don't disagree, for goodness sake. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
We do, because you think the 12 Nidanyas are foundational based on "your experience."
That's it, I call troll. You completely disregarded the sentence which preceded that, and didn't read what I said in context (i.e. I said we don't disagree that the suttas are the definitive word or teachings of the Buddha and what's important is what can be personally validate as truth for one's self in practice):
I renounce them [the suttas] as being the definitive word or teachings of The Buddha for the following reasons:
Would you please actually read what I say? We don't disagree, for goodness sake.
I will not read anything further in your post when you cannot do anyone else on this forum the courtesy of reading what they actually say and in context, and therefore waste our time.
I know I know! As said, I am not proud at the way Igot competitive (thought not petty and insulting, as some), but that's what happens when you have contrasting views in a medium where its all too easy to get excited.
Iam utterly aware I have no ego. I am utterly aware of the illusion of ego and how it can damage clarity.
Dukkha: Life is suffering This is the First Noble Truth, Dukka.
In the 1st Noble Truth Buddha said "dukkha is this", namely, attachment to the five aggregates.
Life is not dukkha. Life can be Nibbana.
Also, the formula is anicca, dukkha, anatta.
Impermanent things are unsatisfactory, thus dukkha comes second. Anatta is not dukkha, thus it comes third. All conditioned things are anicca & dukkha but all things whatsover are anatta. Nibbana is anatta but not anicca & dukkha.
That's it, I call troll. You completely disregarded the sentence which preceded that, and didn't read what I said in context (i.e. I said we don't disagree that the suttas are the definitive word or teachings of the Buddha and what's important is what can be personally validate as truth for one's self in practice):
I will not read anything further in your post when you cannot do anyone else on this forum the courtesy of reading what they actually say and in context, and therefore waste our time.
You will find that you have ignored far far far more of what I have written than I have of what you have written. Including the entity of my longest most pertinent post. Now you call me a Troll?
Dear me, please do not comment on my posts again. This is ridiculous.
Comments
That was not cherry-picking, though. It was pointing out the framework in which the entire sutra is to be interpreted. And that should have been obvious to a careful reader. I wish you would take the time to understand what we are saying, instead of shooting from the hip with the first objection you come up with. You seem to assume that we are unreasonable, just because we disagree with you.
Also I am obviously not a doctrinal Buddhist. This is clearly a faulty projection.
What's your point?
Quite so. That's what I mean by "this is phenomenonlogical, not ontological."
I am not qualified to do this, and don't really care about it. It's what I learned from my teacher, and verified by my own experience. I think it's traditionally been part of the oral tradition of Buddhist practice. I think one of the problems with the Enlightenment has been a tendency to reify the textual over the oral components of cultural traditions, when it's really the oral component which matters most. However, Mundus and Dhatu take more of an interest in what the scriptures say, and may be able to demonstrate this more clearly. For what it's worth, I think it does come through fairly clearly in the Lion's Roar sutra.
I don't care what "many Buddhists" believe. As I told you at the start, I agree that Buddhism, and the scriptures in particular, are probably corruptions of what the Buddha taught. It's up to us to make sense of them.
If you actually took the time to understand it, you would see that the position Mundus, Dhatu and I have been describing is not inconsistent. It just doesn't take the scriptures literally.
Not in the least. Your consistently willfully ignorant, self-centered behavior in this conversation demonstrates the bankruptcy of your views more clearly than any argument about Buddhist theory and practice ever could.
>>>I wish you would take the time to understand what we are saying, instead of shooting from the hip with the first objection you come up with.
We must all be guilty of that then:)
>>>You seem to assume that we are unreasonable, just because we disagree with you.
No, I assume you are unreasonable because you do not show me how you are using reason rather than doctrine:)
>>>Also I am obviously not a doctrinal Buddhist. This is clearly a faulty projection.
Super, so you are happy to abandon all of the texts and try to see Dharma from nothing, as the Buddha did?
This is what I have spent my time as a “Buddhist” doing (Maybe not the first couple of years whiloe I was trying to make sense of the intractable mess that is the cannons and the schools)
>>>Quite so. That's what I mean by "this is phenomenonlogical, not ontological."
But that doesn’t mean there is no ontological aspect to Dharma, at all, quite the contrary. That is my point. I am simply not able to base my entire viewof life and reality on my experiences, withered deep in meditation or chatting on forums or readings ancient texts. If you are, that’s great, you are lucky.
>>>>I am not qualified to do this, and don't really care about it.
But wait, you assert something with authority, but when asked to qualify that you agree there is no authority you are aware of.
That is inconsistent:) See?
>>>I think one of the problems with the Enlightenment has been a tendency to reify the textual over the oral components of cultural traditions, when it's really the oral component which matters most.
Again, why do you believe that? There is simply ZERO evidence about any of the oral tradition of Buddhism until hundreds of years after his death. Doesnt that at least perplex you?
It has me from the moment I first started on this path.
Your view doesn’t make sense to me. It seems irrational. Either I am missing something or you are:)
>>>I don't care what "many Buddhists" believe.
Again, why not. You are walking the same path, unless you think you are right and they are wrong in which case I wonder if you can tell me why?
I think I am right, or at least more right than the doctrinal Buddhists, because I make no bold claims, no mystical claims , no esoteric claims. I believe Dharma is demonstrably simple and it has been hijacked by mystics, the very people the Buddha seems to be warning us against:)
>>>As I told you at the start, I agree that Buddhism, and the scriptures in particular, are probably corruptions of what the Buddha taught. It's up to us to make sense of them.
At last! We agree!:) How do you make sense of them then? What to you jettison and what do you keep? What’s your criteria?
Mine is certainty. I am certain of annica, anataman, dukka, magga. My reason for certainty is dependent origination (general not human suffering and not mere conditionality.)
>>>If you actually took the time to understand it, you would see that the position Mundus, Dhatu and I have been describing is not inconsistent.
Ummm, excuse me, i have spent about 12 of the last 48 hours reading them and you, thinking about what was said and reading the long essays and sutras you have been pointing me to. My conviction becomes stronger not weaker, but please don’t try to belittle my endeavours here. I would love there to me more to life than this, but there isn’t:)
>>>Not in the least. Your consistently willfully ignorant, self-centered behavior in this conversation demonstrate the bankruptcy of your views more clearly than any argument about Buddhist theory and practice ever could.
Wow. I can only think i have piqued some doubt to get that kind of reaction. You mistake my refusal to accept without reason and certainty as "willfull ignorance" and try to insult me as well...
be nice:)
Mat
And no, it's not your "refusal to accept," it's your continually misinterpreting carefully expressed ideas, which a careful reader would avoid, and which your last post is also full of. If your posts here really are the result of twelve hours' attention, a course in remedial reading comprehension would not go astray.
Some may think when you start getting insulted, as you keep doing to me, its time to stop. I dont mind that. But when you refuse to answer my questions and address my points, espcially when I have at least tried to answer each of yours, then its time:)
You seem to want some kind of victory, I just want truth. I concede! You win! I am a stupid ignorant man.
But that doesn't change reality and Dharma.
Well done!
Mat
In the 2nd row on the grey border of the writing page, fourth in from the right, is a yellow icon.
If you place your cursor over chosen text and press the yellow icon, it will wrap a quote in a quote box.
This will save you from having to use your >>>> method, which makes your posts difficult to follow.
The suttas have been explained to you. Obviously, to you, reading the suttas is like reading Chinese or whatever language one is illiterate in.
Funny how you must borrow phrases like Dependent Origination from the suttas and even try to quote the Kalama Sutta.
Your contradiction is merely that.
Better for the student to learn than try to teach.
Kindly go back through it and see who has dealt the personal insults, not me.
I respect you, I do not respect the distortions of squabbling monks (these are the reasons for the Councils. I urge you look to the history here, its crucially important if you wish to bestow the texts with even a modicum authority.)
Further, your posts show your mind has not worked out Dhamma.
It is best to start Dhamma from the beginning.
"I undertake the training to refrain from........"
For some of us, we are merely quoting & explaining suttas.
We are not making personal declarations....albeit about nothing of particular significance.
The Kalama Sutra is hugely important but I don't take it as verbatim. As I have consistently maintained, I will only accept that which is certain.
The rest is all with the Jataka tales.
You patronise me yet know nothing about me....
The Buddha was normal man, like you. Why can you not try to see what he saw from first principles?
Was he majic?
Those who have worked out the Dhamma urge their spiritual companions to the cessation of suffering.
It sounds like you are a "Rebel Without a Cause", "Rebelling Within The Prison".
:buck:
To see directly, clearly & deeply the Three Marks, one does not use Dependent Origination as the primary object of insight meditation. One starts with the in & out breathing and then moves onwards & upwards with more subtle (mental) aggregates.
Your connection of Dependent Origination with the Three Marks is merely intellectual or theoretical. To that degree, it is correct.
Further, compared to the suttas on Dependent Origination, the Kalama Sutra has little importance.
If a wise person had to chose one and throw away the other, they would throw way the Kalama Sutta.
The Kalama Sutra was spoken to villagers rather than practitioners.
It is something fitting to be taught to teenagers to nurture their faculties of critical thinking.
I recommend it to any 14 year old.
If you had a more receptive audience, the original "only display" would have made a nice pun.
Just because something hurts your feelings, that doesn't mean it's intended as an insult. You are demonstrably misapprehending clearly expressed ideas. That is either a failure of comprehension, or a failure of personal integrity.
Reminds me of bread rolls thrown by unruly, self-opinionated undergraduates.
I agree. Its been pretty shameful and shoddy all round, me included. Nobody is perfect, we can but try:)
Mat, the ignoramus.
Yes, I guess forums are renowned for this. I'm sure if we were all sitting in a circle talking in turn it would have been more productive and cooperative and less competitive.
I have discussed similar issues with Monks, Nuns and devout lay Buddhists in person and its always been civil:)
Well, it was my clearest object lesson yet in "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink..."
I have studied philosophy for twenty years. I have dedicated my intellectual, moral and psychological life to Dharma for nearly ten.
Is it possible you simply don't have the capacity to understand this horses ass?
after reading this thread I find this statement hard to believe.
I know I know! As said, I am not proud at the way I got competitive (thought not petty and insulting, as some), but that's what happens when you have contrasting views in a medium where its all too easy to get excited.
I am utterly aware I have no ego. I am utterly aware of the illusion of ego and how it can damage clarity. Dukka in action:) (Dukka is action)
Mat
Quite possible, but the only conclusion anyone is going to draw from this thread is that you either can't understand or have willfully ignored clear explanations of D.O.
Calming down now:) I haven't wilfully ignored anything (that's just silly) so we must assume that I can't understand. I have tried, and failed. So I will go with my Wrong View, and you with your Right View and let us go in peace:)
Well wishes:)
Mat
You have actually declared yourself, numerous times, as the Metteyya. :hohum: Please show some humility. You have not worked anything out on your own. You have taken concepts from the suttas. But then you suggest people here are just sutta-thumpers when they try to explain the validity and significance of another concept in the suttas, which is hypocritical.
Only as much as you are. Please note that I only cite the suttas for things I have validated to be true through personal practice, and am not citing them blindly:
"That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along."
And as such this ^ is what Dhamma and I have been saying all along as well. :hohum:
I will answer your questions as you requested but after this, you will have to make the effort to answer your own questions about the suttas, as they are available to you just as they are to me, and you can only validate what we've said when you make the effort to do so yourself through practice.
:eek: The issue here is that you misunderstsand the source of dukkha to begin with. And I believe you might misunderstand the word dukkha as well. Firstly, dukkha refers to mental suffering specifically. So when you agreed earlier that the Buddha taught only thing, and that is dukkha and the quenching of dukkha, you agreed that he taught only the quenching of mental suffering.
Iddapaccayatta (This/That Conditionality), as Dhamma said, occurs in all systems. You are not wrong about that. But as Buddhists we're specifically concerned with how dukkha is conditioned, and this is why paticcasummupada (what we as Buddhists call "Dependent Origination," which for our purpose is the 12 Nidanas, a subset of iddapaccayatta) is so crucial to our practice and is rightly called the Highest Teaching:
"Entailed by anatta"? :eek: Not fully seeing anatta is the source of dukkha because of anicca and it's as "simple" as that. Anatta is not just "this is not self" or "this is not I," but "this is not mine" as well.
If I buy a car, it will eventually break down, decay... I will experience dukkha because it's "my car." You will not experience dukkha because it is not your car, it is not something you've built your self-identification around. Likewise, that car would have eventually ended up like that anyway, it was inevitable, and had I not bought it, I would not experience dukkha.
As you can see, anicca is not inherently negative as you suggest, it does not inherently cause dukkha. It's only through self-identification that we experience dukkha. This is what the 12 Nidanas illustrate accurately.
The 12 Nidanas are not meant to explain this directly, as Dhamma already explained, yet anicca and anatta can clearly be seen within it. However, impermanence is death, and the explanation that it "tends towards the inevitable negative" is the entire point of this teaching; it tends towards the negative because of self-identification, because of not fully realizing anatta. Please observe all dukkha you experience and see for yourself if this is the ultimate truth or not. Until you've paid a visit to your meditation mat to observe this truth firsthand, this discussion is pointless.
Because the 12 Nidanas are laid out in various ways, depending on the teaching, for the sake of clarity... It is because you have only read hearsay rather than look at the original theory that you do not know this. If you do not see the role ignorance plays in this sutta, then... :hohum:
How does that seem incompatible? :eek2: No one has denied that teaching. :eek2: The 12 Nidanas are a specific teaching of Conditionality and it's relevence to our practice. This is shown in, for example, the Assutava Sutta.
If you read the rest of the very sutta you just cited, you will notice...
This is admittedly your view, thus you cannot be Enlightened, as you still cling, which is why you have never tasted freedom from dukkha. :buck: Please don't cherry-pick, and read in context.
Instead of saying "elsewhere" please cite actual examples so I know exactly what you're refering to.
Edit - I just noticed an earlier post:
"Consciousness depends on mental formations in the Nidanas yet in the Maha Nidana Sutra (Quoted from Pallihakara) Buddha says to Anada "If asked what constitutes consciousness, you should answer it is the mind and body."
How about you actually provide direct quotations? The sutta actually says: "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.'"
Once again, you demonstrate poor reading comprehension.
If you have read any of the other suttas you would find that it's taught that consciousness arises when a sense organ and the associated neuro-sensory system meets a "sense object" which leads to the corresponding form of consciousness, which is called "Contact." Consciousness can be tainted as described in that very sutta as the Seven Stations of Consciousness, as Dhamma's example has already illustrated, and thus consciousness and mind-and-body mutually condition each other. So in the 12 Nidanas as they are traditionally presented you technically see consciousness coming up twice. There is no contradiction.
Mat, please be curteous and provide the full sentence next time rather than pulling incomplete conjugations out and with no context. Bhava means "becoming" (the 9th Nidana). Dhamma explained what this means in his example earlier.
Please provide an example outside of what the 12 Nidanas explains. Your vagueness shows your lack of true understanding of the arising of dukkha.
Fivebells addressed part of these questions already, and:
I am not the one who is cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is reading one sutta, and no others. Cherry-picking is not reading a sutta in context and even failing to do so even after a curteous Fivebells has tried to assist you. Cherry-picking is literally taking a handful of concepts that originated in the suttas without paying any attention to what the suttas actually say about them, and redifining them for your own purpose. I cannot force you to read the suttas, and to put everything in perspective. Even those who believe he taught literal rebirth agree that one has to consider the audience he was teaching.
For our purposes, the realms are psychological realms. You can see this if you read other suttas such as the Khana Sutta (you asked for proof, so there you go, since Fivebells quoting the sutta itself and asking you to read everything in context wasn't sufficient). And as another poster quoted at one time, addressing why he taught literal rebirth to some people:
If you actually wish to learn about this, I suggest you refer to this Thread. I will not respond to any further questions regarding why the Buddha taught literal rebirth; search the forums if you want to learn more. If you are attempting to disprove a concept that was originally presented in the suttas, and disprove our personal experiences, then please do your own research, and not expect the answers to be spoonfed to you by those you wish to disprove when you have no sincere desire to understand them in the first place.
I already explained to you my position and that the Buddha's teachings are concerned with the here-and-now which is why fully grasping the 12 Nidanas is so crucial. The Buddha was unconcerned with yours or anyone else's speculative views on life after death; it just doesn't matter.
In order to stop the circles I'm not going to reply to anything to do with the sutras from now on. I renounce them as being the definitive word or teachings of The Buddha for the following reasons:
1) They were not written down until 100BC, at least 400 years after the death of the Buddha and I simply believe it impossible that they could have been carried on verbatim, even with this idea of "high redundancy" due to the number of monks maintaining the verbal tradition.
2) They were written down 1500 miles away from where the Buddha lived.
3) They cannot possibly be the teachings of one man in one lifetime just by the sheer quantity of text.
4) They were written in a Script (Pali) for a language that the Buddha didn't speak (Magadhi Prakrit)
5) There are no original (2000 year old) versions of the Suttras to compare with, they are copies of copies. I am happy to ignore this reason, but its significant.
7) They are internally inconsistent . I am happy to ignore this reason, but its significant.
So, does that mean I cannot be a Buddhist? No, it means though I am not going to except anything unless it can be shown to be by experience, science or reason and without inconsistency.
Now I am clear on that, I'll answer your points:)
You have actually declared yourself, numerous times, as the Metteyya. :hohum: Please show some humility.
Well, I agree it would be HUGELY arrogant of me to say I was enlightened if by enlightenment you mean something deeper than my certainty in Dharma.That would have a messianic stink about it for sure:)
But I don't, I think Dharma is all that flows from asking "What is true of all realities and how do these truths effect the human condition?"
And the answer to this question leads me to a world view grounded in certainty, from the principle of conditionality and noncontradiction to the psychological, moral and philosophical truths of the Noble Eightfold path.
That is my enlightenment. Pretty unimpressive, really. For me understandaing emptiness and impermanence (Which I believe I do) leads directly into my moral/mental life and back.
Its simple:) Maybe that's not the enlightenment you are looking for, but this to me, this gift of Dharma is the most wonderful gift.
>>>You have not worked anything out on your own.
Read the end of my blog post that started this and tell me which of your special sutras its from please, If you cant, I will assume that wasnt your reason talking.
>>>You have taken concepts from the suttas.
I will still use concepts from the sutras, the stuff that is certain! That's my whole point! I believe in kama, dukka, sukka magga , anica... etc But only because I can explain how they fit togther.
You might like to see this post I wrote last year on this:
http://thesaltedsolution.blogspot.com/2008/06/bulletpoint-buddhism.html
In the same way I think the KS is wonderful, not because its a Suttra but because its the first exposition of rational methodology and would be agreed on by pretty much every scientist.
>>>"That's right, there is no authority to fall back on, only personal experience. That's what I've been saying all along."
Sure, that's great. Do you renounce the suttras too?
Even if you do, there is a problem, because if you cant convey what that experince,means to me in language, like the Buddha must have if we assume he taught anyone, then I am left to believe that your personal experience of these truths you cant explain is just "inner created" rather than any underlying truth of the kind I believe I have found.
And so why should I differentiate your profound experience from that of Carlos Castenada or some Hippy acid head.
Unless you have reason to ground, I am just not satisfied you have anything profound:)
>>>Firstly, dukkha refers to mental suffering specifically.
We agree we have no authority on any of the doctrine, so why do you assume you do here? This is especially true of the complex composite Dharmic terms as we have no idea what the Buddha wouldhave used.
So what can we do? All we can do is see what things true of reality match what Dukka might be. Is there anything "out there" as a candidate? yes! The inevitable negativity of possible systems, which, in selfaware sentient systems manifests as the kind of negativity that the english translations of the pali come out as: suffering, strain, anguish.
But I see everything as systems, so for me a Star is subject to Dukka, but because its simple the Dukka doesn't have the emergent human qualities we experience. Dukka and the expericne of Dukka are interchanable, but only with sentient systems.
>>>this is why paticcasummupada (what we as Buddhists call "Dependent Origination,"
We get down to scripture with this issue, because its simply a matter of label and translation. You cannot possibly know what the Buddha called what. But, again, istnt it clear, isnt it in the name of the Pali, its about how things depend on other things to come into being. Dont forget others call it "conditioned genesist" etc
I am starting tothink I have completely misunderstood you and the others here. Are you really saying this squabble is about the literal meaning of the pali term "paticcasummupada"? Please! No! I want my time back!
If that's what your saying, then whatever, yes , pick a term and ill use it. Ykes!
My point is about the foundational principle that the Buddha discovered and how it is true of all things.
I am sorry, I find that example unworkable. If a System S expences Dukka because of a condition C then S must be connected with C. In your example there is no connection between me and your car.
Look, I have told you how I see Dukka, and if you believe I'm mistaken, no problemo. But If you actually want to show me I am wrong, then you have to show me clearly using just reason, not your sutras and not your experience.
You cannot possibly know this, it must be your opinion, which you are very entitled to:) It seems you have strong opinions, and wonderful experiences in nibbana (Whats it like in there?), but I want more.
I want the Dharma the Buddha found in one night (or day) and clearly must have taught to many in a few moments. That's what I want, not the regujitations of thousands of monks who we know historically have expanded (read bloated and corrupted) what I am certain was a simple enlightenment.
Life is short, there is nothing else than this, I would love there to be but I am certain this is it. I am certain because of Dharma. And I am certain that the best way I can live this life is that of the Noble Eightfold Path, seeking truth, cultivating compassion, love and peace. Then I will die, and that is that, but I will be sure I have lived the best life I could have. For me that surety is enlightemnet.
Pace out,
Mat
You, friend, are the only one claiming enlightenment.
Oh boy.
No, that isn't what this is over. It's over what the Highest Teaching of the Buddha is. Don't worry, we still disagree with you, you haven't wasted your time.
That's fine. But please remove the concepts of Dependent Origination, Conditionality, anicca, anatta, and dukkha from the essay you linked to, then, as they were taken from the suttas.
Take care.
How rude, you simply didn't read my last post and I spent an age on it:(
I know you didn't read it because I explain which Dharmic concepts I use, and why. ie, Those I can be certain of.
I guess you just "did a runner":(
Anyways, even against your rudeness, I wish you well:)
Mat
You are the one who asked me roughly five million questions or so about the sutta you read, then said you didn't care or want to bother with it after I took the time to answer you. Please consider if you meant to direct the above comment at yourself rather than me.
If you are happy, then great, that's wonderful.
You came and asked to be proven wrong, but in fact you were hoping to have your ego stroked. You have taken concepts from the suttas, renamed them, and declared that you discovered this unbelievable truth on your own and that you are the Metteyya. Everyone here has been aware of the truth of Conditionality for a long time now, so unfortunately we are not impressed. If knowing Conditionality is enlightenment, then we are glad you finally caught up with us. :buck: If you ever decide there might be something more to learn, feel free to look this Thread over again.
Yes, but its been subsumed in mumbojobo. That's my whole point! Its been there not just a long time but for all time:)
Would you please actually read what I say? We don't disagree, for goodness sake.
Hello irony.
Is "mumbojobo" a scientific term?
No, it hasn't been subsumed in anything. Your explanation:
If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I walk up to your door, I will be on your doorstep.
If I am never on your doorstep, I will never be knocking on your door.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.
was brutally stripped and mutilated from the very suttas you continue to urinate all over :buck::
When there is this, there is that,
When there is not this, there is not that.
When this arises, that arises.
When this ceases, that ceases.
[Samyutta Nikaya 12.37]
We have been more than aware of this universal fact for a long time, Mat. We have all said numerous times in this Thread that Conditionality has been around "since the Big Bang" as you put it, and that it applies to everything; this is simple fact that I think absolutely every Buddhist agrees on and is aware of. You give yourself too much credit. Once again, if you feel someday there might be something more to learn, feel free to come back to this Thread.
:buck:
We do, because you think the 12 Nidanyas are foundational based on "your experience."
Please think about what I say as well:)
>>Is "mumbojobo" a scientific term?
yes, it means irrational, unproven, inconsistent, unjustified, bloated, erronious... etc
>>>>was brutally stripped and mutilated from the very suttas you continue to urinate all over
NO NO NO NO! LOL
Are you joking? I am not saying I CAME UP WITH DO. The Buddha did. Its in the sutra, simply stated and compeltelyunquestionable (Un like the 12 Nidanyas):
When there is this, there is that,
When there is not this, there is not that.
When this arises, that arises.
When this ceases, that ceases.
My doorstep example was clearly an example. Accuse me of stupidity, sure, but not plagiarism.
>>>We have all said a numerous in this Thread that Conditionality has been around "since the Big Bang" as you put it, and that it applies to everything; this is simple fact that I think absolutely every Buddhist agrees on and is aware of.
Did you read this section? I think I see why DO (foundational) leads to DUKKA, from first principles:
Why is Dependent Origination Dharma?
I outlined here about the Three Marks of Existence, Annica, Anataman and Dukka, and how all of Dharma flows from them. I belive when you understand Dependent origination it is possible to see how these Three Marks are necessarily the case. Even now after many years thinking about this it hurts my head to see it all as one body of truth. I think this is why Meditation is considered so important to Dharma practice, as it may offer a way to apprehend these conceptual structures outside of the rigid lingustic structures we are used to relying on. But here goes:
Annica – All things are impermanent
Because all conditioned things originate within this transitive web of causation it follows that there is nothing to remain a constant. There is no thing that is isolated from the changes that flow following the principle of Dependent Origination. This applies from the neurons in my brain that make my knuckles tap on your door to the sound wave you hear and everything that follows from that and leads up to that.
As soon as an event happens, as soon as a thing changes, it is gone and the next change is happening, the effect becomes a new cause. And so on. And so on.
All conditioned things are impermanent. Everything is change.
Anataman – There are no objects/egos/souls
Because all things (systems, events..) are conditioned things it follows that there can be no thing that is isolated from the web of causation and equally no thing that appears from nowhere within the web of causation (QM randomness aside?). If Dependent origination is true in all possible realities then all possible realities are consistent. Consistent interconnectedness and impermanence preclude the possibility of their being something that is excluded from interconnectedness (a distinct thing) or immune to impermanence (an eternal thing.)
Ontologically impermanence and interconnectedness manifest in the impossibility of anomalous things, like miracles and souls. Psychologically impermanence and interconnectedness preclude the possibility of a constant distinct self/ego. There are no distinct objects in mind our world, however the illusions of perspective may make things seem to the contrary.
Dukka –Negativity/Suffering/Decay is Inevitable
Consider a deck of cards arranged neatly in suits and imagine the order changing (shuffling) as all things do. Any change will be a change away from that order, and, in addition, the probability increasingly decreases the more the deck is shuffled that it will to the original neat order. The deck of cards has a finite possibility space and the vastest extent of that space is change away from order not towards
The same is true of all systems that constitute reality; change will take place in a finite possibility space. In physical terms this fact is captured by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In economic terms by the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. In human terms by realisations such as “the more of Great Thing X you have, the less great X becomes.” Change reduces the possibility space and if that space is valued by some other agent (like you) then change tends towards the negative.
These kinds of realisations are the opposite of difficult, if dogs could think like us, they would think the same. It’s not just that all things change but that most change tends towards the negative. The Buddha realised that this fact was self-evident. Moreover, when the inevitable negative was apprehended by sentient beings with qualitative experiences (like you) the realisation, conscious or not, will be bound to create negative experiences in the being.
This is why we suffer, the Buddha thought; because we constantly crave for the inevitable negative to not be the case. Accepting our impermanence and the impermanence of our good experiences is one thing but clinging to the hope that that may not be the case is fundamentally going to only bear bitter fruit. It cannot be any other way.
Dukka applies to solar systems and ecosystems and air-conditioning systems, but where it solidifies into suffering and strain is when the inevitable negative is apprehended by sentient systems, just like me, just like you. The only way to lessen the negativity of the inevitable negative in ourselves is to end attachment to transient things and to remove ignorance about the ontological status of things (ego, object, others...) and see the world as it really is. The method he reasoned from these realisations was to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and embrace the transitive and the inevitable negative.
___
What is wrong with my reasoning?
I am not interested in your opinons, or mine, or anyones. just reason, regarding these foundational truths.
That's not even selflessness, but if it were, it would still be only the grossest meaning of selflessness.
So there's still something undergoing change. That means something endures and is therefore permanent.. at least for a while until its destruction.
That's it, I call troll. You completely disregarded the sentence which preceded that, and didn't read what I said in context (i.e. I said we don't disagree that the suttas are the definitive word or teachings of the Buddha and what's important is what can be personally validate as truth for one's self in practice):
I will not read anything further in your post when you cannot do anyone else on this forum the courtesy of reading what they actually say and in context, and therefore waste our time.
:cheer:
Life is not dukkha. Life can be Nibbana.
Also, the formula is anicca, dukkha, anatta.
Impermanent things are unsatisfactory, thus dukkha comes second. Anatta is not dukkha, thus it comes third. All conditioned things are anicca & dukkha but all things whatsover are anatta. Nibbana is anatta but not anicca & dukkha.
So DO is not the 12N;)
You will find that you have ignored far far far more of what I have written than I have of what you have written. Including the entity of my longest most pertinent post. Now you call me a Troll?
Dear me, please do not comment on my posts again. This is ridiculous.