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.
It hasn't had the tranquillity of sitting talking to Monks in Gangaramaya Temple, for sure:)
I have found it really education though, so it has had some progress benefits to my study of Dharma (Though I would say regress in terms of Practice!)
Mat
I also asked myself, having struggled through the repetitive and 'noisy' posts "All very interesting but what difference does it all make to the dukkha of this world that I love, after the example of the Tathagata himself who chose to Turn the Wheel for the benefit of all beings?"
Much of the dependency described here seems more like co-dependency to me but then I am an ignorant person and threads like this only help me to recognise it. Thank you all.
I also asked myself, having struggled through the repetitive and 'noisy' posts "All very interesting but what difference does it all make to the dukkha of this world that I love, after the example of the Tathagata himself who chose to Turn the Wheel for the benefit of all beings?"
Much of the dependency described here seems more like co-dependency to me but then I am an ignorant person and threads like this only help me to recognise it. Thank you all.
The Buddha was ignorant of Dharma too.
And then he discovered it.
And then he taught it to countless people.
I want to know what he discovered.
I want to know what he taught.
If it was esoteric then remain ignorant,
If it was simple, emergent, then I stand by my certainty.
What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
MN 22
Dhamma x 4
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught.
Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."
And these things — the five aggregates affected by clinging — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping & holding on to these five aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five aggregates is the cessation of stress.'
What happens since the beginning of time is irrelevent. Sounds like god theory.
In the beginning was the DO, and the DO was with God, and the DO was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1
But da Buddha taught as follows:
Let one not trace back the past
Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.
That which is past is left behind
Unattained is the "yet-to-come."
But that which is present he discerns —
With insight as and when it comes.
The Immovable — the-non-irritable.
In that state should the wise one grow.
"If you know Dharma, you know Dependent origination. If you know Dependent Origination, you know dharma." The Buddha
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 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.
>>>>was brutally stripped and mutilated from the very suttas you continue to urinate all over *quotes sutta as requested*
NO NO NO NO! LOL
Are you joking? I am not saying I CAME UP WITH DO. The Buddha did.
Also, let's look at that first quote. For the sake of absolute clarity, that quote is translated from: "yo paticcasamuppàdaüpassati, so dhammaü passati. Yo dhammaü passati so patticcasamuppàdaü passati"
Paticcasamuppada is the 12 Links, there is no arguing this, this is how the word is defined and explained in the theory it was originally presented in.
Idappaccayata is This/That Conditionality, there is no arguing this, this is how the word is defined and explained in the theory it was originally presented in.
So you can call Idappaccayata "Dependent Origination" if that makes more sense to you but you should then change "Dependent Origination" in your quote to "the 12 Links." :buck:
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?
Matteyya, you have consistently taken the things people in this Thread have said out of context. This was pointed out to you long ago, and on more thanone occasion. People here have been doing their best to address all of your points this entire time. I got tired of doing so ONLY after you asked me a few hundred or so questions about the sutta you had just read, and then had me waste my time answering you when you had no actual desire to know the answers in the first place and just blew my entire post off. I would be happy to answer your posts but I would appreciate it if you would stop taking everything said out of context for the sake of it, like you did with the "we don't disagree" comment.
What is wrong with my reasoning?
You said:
so for me a Star is subject to Dukka.....
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.
You are using dukkha and anicca interchangeably here. If "dukkha" here were "anicca" then this paragraph would make more sense. Anicca =/= dukkha, although you seem to be suggesting it inherently is. Likewise, anatta is not dukkha (as you suggested earlier) unless it's not fully realized. In fact, anatta is liberation from dukkha.
If Tanha is eradicated totally than Dukkha is eradicated totally (enlightenment).
I am curious, after having read this on your blog, why you claim enlightenment. That was posted a year ago I believe. Did you decide to throw this definition away because it was too difficult to achieve?
Please just simply explain what your interpretations and complete butchering of the Pali language would add to anyone's practice here? How does you essay add anything to our practice, when we were all already aware of Conditionality to begin with (in other words, this--that everything is conditioned and impermenent--is a very basic concept all Buddhists are aware of, and a much clearer and more accurate expression of the "door-knocking" example can be found throughout the suttas)? How would removing the 12 Nidanas add to our practice?
Our understanding is that life is not inherently suffering despite all things being inherently impermenent, that mental suffering is caused by ignorance, and full realization of the 12 Links leads to the elimination of the second arrow. Your understanding states that everything is inherently dukkha because everything is impermenent, in other words, life is inherently suffering, and just knowing that should make us utterly happy, and we can just call it quits there.
I think at this point, you can't expect much from further arguments from personal experience and reference to the sutras, or from pointing out logical fallacies, misapprehensions and oversights. It seems a bit like yelling louder at someone to compensate for the fact that they don't speak the language you're using.
If Mat's view is flawed, as we believe it to be, then it is unsatisfactory and subject to decay and death, like everything else. He may be more receptive to the objections we're raising when that death happens. In the meantime, he claims he is happy, so why should he listen to us? People being chased by a stick are much easier to reach than people being led around by a carrot.
I must admit though, I have trouble believing that anyone could be happy while apparently laboring under such a uniquely debilitating incapacity to apprehend what others say as they intend it to be understood. I see he's written some novels. I have to wonder how he responded to critical feedback on them...
If Mat's view is flawed, as we believe it to be, then it is unsatisfactory and subject to decay and death, like everything else.
Maybe. Maybe not.
There are two kinds of decay & death. Natural decay & death and the decay & death of Dependent Origination.
The decay & death of Dependent Origination occurs due to attachment & self fabrication. Its result is dukkha.
So there is a difference between parrotting suttas on the one hand and clinging strongly to one's personal views & self concocting on the other hand.
I prefer to be a parrot flying freely & colourfully rather than a big fat bird perched on a fragile branch of self creating & self reinforcing speculative views.
Reciting pages from a book is not the same as believing one is the newest self-enlightened Buddha.
Comments
They're still at it!!!!
As I was drifting off to sleep last night, I was struck with the thought that the contributions to this thread are less Buddhism than Buddhology.
It hasn't had the tranquillity of sitting talking to Monks in Gangaramaya Temple, for sure:)
I have found it really education though, so it has had some progress benefits to my study of Dharma (Though I would say regress in terms of Practice!)
Mat
I also asked myself, having struggled through the repetitive and 'noisy' posts "All very interesting but what difference does it all make to the dukkha of this world that I love, after the example of the Tathagata himself who chose to Turn the Wheel for the benefit of all beings?"
Much of the dependency described here seems more like co-dependency to me but then I am an ignorant person and threads like this only help me to recognise it. Thank you all.
The Buddha was ignorant of Dharma too.
And then he discovered it.
And then he taught it to countless people.
I want to know what he discovered.
I want to know what he taught.
If it was esoteric then remain ignorant,
If it was simple, emergent, then I stand by my certainty.
Unto each their own:)
12 = dukkha
12 = dukkha nirodha
DO=4NT
4NT=DO
Dhamma x 2
Dhamma x 4
Dhamma x 24
What happens since the beginning of time is irrelevent. Sounds like god theory.
But da Buddha taught as follows:
I don't know, I think there seems to be a fairly pragmatic orientation to some of it.
Also, let's look at that first quote. For the sake of absolute clarity, that quote is translated from: "yo paticcasamuppàdaü passati, so dhammaü passati. Yo dhammaü passati so patticcasamuppàdaü passati"
Paticcasamuppada is the 12 Links, there is no arguing this, this is how the word is defined and explained in the theory it was originally presented in.
Idappaccayata is This/That Conditionality, there is no arguing this, this is how the word is defined and explained in the theory it was originally presented in.
So you can call Idappaccayata "Dependent Origination" if that makes more sense to you but you should then change "Dependent Origination" in your quote to "the 12 Links." :buck:
Matteyya, you have consistently taken the things people in this Thread have said out of context. This was pointed out to you long ago, and on more than one occasion. People here have been doing their best to address all of your points this entire time. I got tired of doing so ONLY after you asked me a few hundred or so questions about the sutta you had just read, and then had me waste my time answering you when you had no actual desire to know the answers in the first place and just blew my entire post off. I would be happy to answer your posts but I would appreciate it if you would stop taking everything said out of context for the sake of it, like you did with the "we don't disagree" comment.
You said:
You are using dukkha and anicca interchangeably here. If "dukkha" here were "anicca" then this paragraph would make more sense. Anicca =/= dukkha, although you seem to be suggesting it inherently is. Likewise, anatta is not dukkha (as you suggested earlier) unless it's not fully realized. In fact, anatta is liberation from dukkha.
I am curious, after having read this on your blog, why you claim enlightenment. That was posted a year ago I believe. Did you decide to throw this definition away because it was too difficult to achieve?
Please just simply explain what your interpretations and complete butchering of the Pali language would add to anyone's practice here? How does you essay add anything to our practice, when we were all already aware of Conditionality to begin with (in other words, this--that everything is conditioned and impermenent--is a very basic concept all Buddhists are aware of, and a much clearer and more accurate expression of the "door-knocking" example can be found throughout the suttas)? How would removing the 12 Nidanas add to our practice?
Our understanding is that life is not inherently suffering despite all things being inherently impermenent, that mental suffering is caused by ignorance, and full realization of the 12 Links leads to the elimination of the second arrow. Your understanding states that everything is inherently dukkha because everything is impermenent, in other words, life is inherently suffering, and just knowing that should make us utterly happy, and we can just call it quits there.
Thank you.
If Mat's view is flawed, as we believe it to be, then it is unsatisfactory and subject to decay and death, like everything else. He may be more receptive to the objections we're raising when that death happens. In the meantime, he claims he is happy, so why should he listen to us? People being chased by a stick are much easier to reach than people being led around by a carrot.
I must admit though, I have trouble believing that anyone could be happy while apparently laboring under such a uniquely debilitating incapacity to apprehend what others say as they intend it to be understood. I see he's written some novels. I have to wonder how he responded to critical feedback on them...
There are two kinds of decay & death. Natural decay & death and the decay & death of Dependent Origination.
The decay & death of Dependent Origination occurs due to attachment & self fabrication. Its result is dukkha.
So there is a difference between parrotting suttas on the one hand and clinging strongly to one's personal views & self concocting on the other hand.
I prefer to be a parrot flying freely & colourfully rather than a big fat bird perched on a fragile branch of self creating & self reinforcing speculative views.
Reciting pages from a book is not the same as believing one is the newest self-enlightened Buddha.