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.
Why do you keep attacking other people's belief in rebirth? Seriously, don't you find that offensive?
Excuse me, Ren started attacking my beliefs and refused to allow me to have them.
Even if I wasn't defedning myself, to be honest, if someone wants to talk about a concept I wont feel any qualms about how that talk goes, equally back at me:)
You cant come to an internet debate forum and then get prissy when people don't agree with you.
Don't debate if you dont want somone to argue back:)
Do you or don't you believe that a 'universe' with no sentient creatures would have dukkha?
The second noble truth states that the cause of dukkha is desire. So a non-sentient universe would also need to have desire in order for their to be dukkha.
Is the meaning of desire preserved if you some how ascribe desire onto stars? Are you Hindu?
Excuse me, Ren started attacking my beliefs and refused to allow me to have them.
Obviously it doesn't feel good, does it? So why are you doing the same to other people? I am not prissy, it is just something I would personally ask myself. If I know something is harmful and it has been done to me, how is that an excuse to do the same to other people?
Do you or don't you believe that a 'universe' with no sentient creatures would have dukkha?
I believe a universe with no sentience a any point in any of its dimensions would contain dukka. Absolutely. I take it you didnt think about my previous thoughts on this.
The second noble truth states that the cause of dukkha is desire. So a non-sentient universe would also need to have desire in order for their to be dukkha.
I dont care what is stated, i care what is true and demonstrable.
I belive dukka is true of all systems, I can show this and show what it entails.
Please pay more attention to what i am sayig.
Is the meaning of desire preserved if you some how ascribe desire onto stars? Are you Hindu?
Jeffrey, i had you ignored for weeks and just unignored you because you dont debate you state. Please try to debate, ping pong:)
You are showing a primary school equation of dukka with "suffering".It is a complex term. As in Tanha.
I prefer a discussion and not a debate. I won a trophy in debate when I was in highschool. Debate is about talking fast and 'winning'. I prefer a discussion.
I prefer a discussion and not a debate. I won a trophy in debate when I was in highschool. Debate is about talking fast and 'winning'. I prefer a discussion.
I dont see the differnce between debate and discussion etc... i mean a talk on an internet forum.
And no of course i dont reject the second noble truth
That is my belief, you wont find anywhere where I have said I am certain of it:)
If you feel that you have reason to doubt the Buddha's existence, why are you making claims about who he was and what he did and didn't believe? When you say that the Buddha was X or Y, you are asserting that the Buddha existed. If someone seriously doubts that the Buddha existed, they don't say "The Buddha was a materialist" or "The Buddha didn't teach rebirth." They say "The evidence indicates that the Buddha didn't exist," or something similar.
I had a look at that some time ago, and found nothing that addressed the _evidence_ relating to the reliability of the Nikayas and Agamas. If you want to use something there as a response to something here, please post it. I'm not wading through the page again in an attempt to find something relevant, and I'm not going to guess what you think is relevant.
I belive the Three Marks are self evident, I cannot doubt them, I have tried. This is my point:)
This is irrelevant. We're discussing the historical issue of what the Buddha believed, along with relevant evidence. We're not discussing what you doubt or believe.
The second noble truth is that desire is the cause of dukkha.
Your argument is
But you also say...
So my question is how is it that they possess dukkha without desire given that desire is the cause of dukkha?
I cant explain this if you dont understand emergence and abstraction, which are very simple concepts.
Dukka is true of all systems.
Emergent systems will experince dukka as suffering.
Suffering is also caused by the ignorance of emptiness and impermanence as well as other abstract causes (diminishing returns etc)
Is the second noble truth discarded for non-emergent systems? What is an emergent system?
Just a general comment. I could not understand a lot of what you have been saying the past months because I didn't have these details about what you believed (and no I'm not going to read a whole website hehe). I find these conversations constructive and I often point out what I find disagreeable in your system moreso to find out why you believe it rather than to change your mind, I think.
First I had two questions and I will elaborate on both of them. Separately. And maybe say something about how they are (or are not) tied together.
First of all you wondered if I understood 'emergence'. Its not a matter of whether I understand it, but a matter of never having heard it use. Emerge means come out of. Thats ALL I know of emergence. So my question was a request for whether you would be willing to explain to me what emergence means. I don't have time to trace your footsteps and read every book you have ever read. But if you can introduce in something that takes 1 minute to write and read?
Second you said that emergent systems dukkha is experienced as suffering. I have read that the cause of dukkha is desire. I am guessing that an emergent system would also have desire? So my question is what about the non-emergent systems. They too have dukkha. I guess my unwritten third question is what dukkha means in a system that does not suffer? My second question would be if you believe that the 2nd noble truth only applies to emergent systems? In a non-emergent system would the cause of dukkha be something other than desire. Remember Buddha said the cause of dukkha was desire. Translators have translated two pali words one dukkha and one which was translated into desire.
So I have a curiosity about this whole body of theory that you had prior to studying the dharma. What is emergence? Explain Dukkha in both an emergent and non-emergent system? Do the four noble truths only apply to emergent systems or both? Is 'desire' in the four noble truths translated into an english word that does not fit? If you think THAT is that based on your knowledge of the Pali original translation or is it just a guess so that Buddha's ideas fit into your existing body of knowledge?
Is it quibbling to debate if there is or is not a god?
I don't want to get into this whole argument any more than I have, but I was just skimming through the replies and saw this. Didn't the Buddha specifically admonish his monks that speculative questions such as "Is there a God? Was the universe created? Will it end?" were all unskillful and were to be abandoned? I mean, at least in the Pali Canon I've read this before (I think).
I don't want to get into this whole argument any more than I have, but I was just skimming through the replies and saw this. Didn't the Buddha specifically admonish his monks that speculative questions such as "Is there a God? Was the universe created? Will it end?" were all unskillful and were to be abandoned? I mean, at least in the Pali Canon I've read this before (I think).
We don't know, but its kinda weird that in one hand the remnant texts endorse universal skepticism and in the other forbid philosophical enquiry. yes another reason for me to doubt their consistency and accuracy:)
Another question is how is that you understand exactly what the buddha was teaching? But the people who were his disciple for 40 years ended up inserting so much mysticism and other unsavory elements into the Pali Canon? Why was buddha unable to show his own disciples the error of mysticism?
I got a degree in polymer chemistry and learned about polymers. No elements of mysticism there. Are you saying that within 100 years universities could possibly insert mystical elements into polymer chemistry? Or no? No would suggest that you believe that the renaissance had a greater change on the human consciousness than buddha did? Descartes > Buddha?
First of all you wondered if I understood 'emergence'. Its not a matter of whether I understand it, but a matter of never having heard it use. Emerge means come out of. Thats ALL I know of emergence. So my question was a request for whether you would be willing to explain to me what emergence means. I don't have time to trace your footsteps and read every book you have ever read. But if you can introduce in something that takes 1 minute to write and read?
Emmergence is the only majic,
You get something for nothing,
New properties for free.
Second you said that emergent systems dukkha is experienced as suffering.
no I said sentient systems.
I have read that the cause of dukkha is desire.
Try thinking, it makes a fine partner to reading:)
So my question is what about the non-emergent systems.
All systems emmerge or are designed.
They too have dukkha.
All systems are subject to the three marks, including dukka.
I guess my unwritten third question is what dukkha means in a system that does not suffer?
What does red mean in a tomato?
Dukka is a property of systems. Depending on the system complexity the abstraction of dukka will change. Nonsentient systems will exhibit it in theior behavoir or their processes. Bacteria or galaxies, all subject to dukka.
My second question would be if you believe that the 2nd noble truth only applies to emergent systems?
You are confusing emmergent system with sentient. See above and think about it.
Is 'desire' in the four noble truths translated into an english word that does not fit?If you think THAT is that based on your knowledge of the Pali original translation or is it just a guess so that Buddha's ideas fit into your existing body of knowledge?
I don't entertain that anymore here, its pointless. the Buddha didnt speak pali and I reject the texts as philosophically relevant, prefering to start from first principles.
Another question is how is that you understand exactly what the buddha was teaching?
Yet again you misrepresent me. yawn. To recap, I am happy to pretend the buddha never existed and talk dharma that way.
He was, after all, just a man, if he exitsed at all.
So why cant we start again with dharma?
Discover what he discovered?
But the people who were his disciple for 40 years ended up inserting so much mysticism and other unsavory elements into the Pali Canon?
We dont know if ananda exited or anyone else. it was 500 years and 1500 miles. My personal belief is that the mystic distortion came in those five centuries, long after his disciples were dead.
Why was buddha unable to show his own disciples the error of mysticism?
I think he was:) I read the "self-mortification" avoidance as being the entire mystical realm:) is that such a far streatch?
Mat often I reply to what I do understand rather than making a line item response to every question. It 'feels' better to me. But since I respect your preferences I will try to respond to each of your points. Although in Blooms Taxonomy Synthesis and Conclusion is higher on the totem pole than some of the other modes of knowledge.
In my next post I will line item response to you. But first I must cut and paste your whole post <sigh>.
Emmergence is the only majic,
You get something for nothing,
New properties for free.
I don't get it
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Second you said that emergent systems dukkha is experienced as suffering. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
no I said sentient systems.
Got it
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> I have read that the cause of dukkha is desire. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Try thinking, it makes a fine partner to reading:)
Explain this to me. In english suffering is the translation of dukkha. I can see a relationship between desire and suffering. Score one for my thinking. I do not see a way to deanthropomorphize suffering and desire into clouds. Sorry.
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> So my question is what about the non-emergent systems. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
All systems emmerge or are designed.
All systems are magic and get something for nothing. See above I don't get this. Does the magic come from God? Where does the magic come from?
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> They too have dukkha. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
All systems are subject to the three marks, including dukka.
Not sure where this quote is cut from
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> I guess my unwritten third question is what dukkha means in a system that does not suffer? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
What does red mean in a tomato?
Dukka is a property of systems. Depending on the system complexity the abstraction of dukka will change. Nonsentient systems will exhibit it in theior behavoir or their processes. Bacteria or galaxies, all subject to dukka.
Are you saying that in tomatos dukkha is their color? What in a tomato corresponds to dukkha?
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> My second question would be if you believe that the 2nd noble truth only applies to emergent systems? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You are confusing emmergent system with sentient. See above and think about it.
Do the 4 noble truths only apply to sentients?
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Is 'desire' in the four noble truths translated into an english word that does not fit?If you think THAT is that based on your knowledge of the Pali original translation or is it just a guess so that Buddha's ideas fit into your existing body of knowledge? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I don't entertain that anymore here, its pointless. the Buddha didnt speak pali and I reject the texts as philosophically relevant, prefering to start from first principles. __________________
Ok so your theory is that the buddhas original correct meaning was mistranslated into Pali, which eventually in turn got translated into english. A lot like my previous response I mean I get the concept of 'telephone' but are you saying his disciples of 40 years did not understand him and mistranslated into Pali? Why do you understand him through all the layers of translation without ever hearing buddha in his native tongue, yet his disciples who studied with him giving up house home and comfort did not?
Ok I answered your questions. Now my turn. If Buddha's disciples who devoted their entire lives to following him got it so wrong. What makes you think some dudes who are on the internet because they love 'dogmatic buddhism' will be able to absorb your message?
Explain this to me. In english suffering is the translation of dukkha. I can see a relationship between desire and suffering. Score one for my thinking. I do not see a way to deanthropomorphize suffering and desire into clouds.
Clouds do not suffer, if they were sentient, they would:) I am not saying nonsentient things suffer, I am saying they are subject to the same three marks of existance.
Does the magic come from God? Where does the magic come from?
You have two points and nothing else. Then you add a third point and suddenly you have the possibility of "betweenness". Where does that betweeness come from?
Are you saying that in tomatos dukkha is their color? What in a tomato corresponds to dukkha?
No, you missread.
Do the 4 noble truths only apply to sentients?
There is no binary cut off point between sentient and nonsentient. Are dogs subject to the four noble truths? Monkeys? Apes? Mice?
Ok so your theory is that the buddhas original correct meaning was mistranslated into Pali
That is one of numerous possibilities. I imagine it was various forces over the millenia rather than simple translation errors.
What is important is that we cannot know, categorically, if any aspect of what we have today as Buddhism is what was around in the time of the buddha.
If Buddha's disciples who devoted their entire lives to following him got it so wrong.
Gawd I dont think that at all. As said, I imagine the distortions came long after they were all dead. but again, how can we know for sure.
What makes you think some dudes who are on the internet because they love 'dogmatic buddhism' will be able to absorb your message?
errr, I don't have a message and I am not interested in trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, that is the dogma i find so unwholesome in all aspects of life.
Now when I was having breakfast today, a sudden thought came to mind. What if "liberation from rebirth" actually meant to mean "liberation from the idea of rebirth" that, perhaps, was as burning on every Indian's mind as, say, the fear of hell on a Catholic's? During Buddah's time, the idea if rebirth in India was held indisputable and just as accepted as, say, the theory of evolution among Western scientists today. What if Buddah was telling his disciples: "you do these practices I'm teaching you and the burden of the traditional Indian religion is going to fall off your minds and you'll breathe freely". Traditional Indian teachings, of course, include the idea of rebirth. Possibly, it would have been too risky to just say outright that religious dogma of the day was basically nonsense, so Buddah had to resort to hints?
What a great post, shadowleaver! It's definitely food for thought.
I've heard that when the Buddha lived, it was a very philosophically active time in India, and while many people believed in rebirth with an eternal essence/soul, there were other people who denied the existence of an afterlife. The Buddha thought both views missed the mark.
There's a story about the Buddha where a man comes to visit him and asks several questions. One question was whether the Buddha would exist or not exist after death. The Buddha refuses to answer the man.
Another interesting thing is that a point mathematically is infinitely small. Yet on a line the points are able to connect to each other while at the same time there is an infinite number of points.
Emergent = relative aka the movie
Space = emptiness aka the screen
There you go
The points are sentient beings and the boundaries between them (in the case of sentients) have no dimensions.
My lama's husband is a mathematician
In order for rebirth to be true the connections between points must go outside of space and time according to my lama
Another interesting thing is that a point mathematically is infinitely small. Yet on a line the points are able to connect to each other while at the same time there is an infinite number of points.
Emergent = relative aka the movie
Space = emptiness aka the screen
There you go
The points are sentient beings and the boundaries between them (in the case of sentients) have no dimensions.
In buddhism space isn't just outer space. Like we are lost on Mars with Dr. Smith. It is like a rainbow. The relationships between the colors, I guess would be relative. Yet at the same time a rainbow has properties of space. Sentient beings experience space when they move. And also when they see and think.
In buddhism space isn't just outer space. Like we are lost on Mars with Dr. Smith. It is like a rainbow. The relationships between the colors, I guess would be relative. Yet at the same time a rainbow has properties of space. Sentient beings experience space when they move. And also when they see and think.
from the 'relationship' of the first particle to the second a new property emerges. This is what is meant in buddhist scripture by 'relative'. I am positive. At least in the glow of opiphany. I just never got it until now. Maybe this is old news for you? Thank you so much.
Maybe not in the Pali. Mahayana scripture talks a LOT about the relative. Also known as the two truths. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form (heart sutra). The relative is made up of space. Space is made up of the relative.
from the 'relationship' of the first particle to the second a new property emerges. This is what is meant in buddhist scripture by 'relative'. I am positive. At least in the glow of opiphany. I just never got it until now. Maybe this is old news for you? Thank you so much.
Where is relative mentioned in buddhist literature?
Mat this means that knives aren't anything and butter isn't anything. But the relationships tell what knives and butter are. You know how knives relate to butter intuitively. Everything about knives and butter is made up of relationships! (not just to eachother)
Emergence is luminescence... and emptiness is not being dogmatic about the relationships but rather clearly seeing them so to speak.
Mat this means that knives aren't anything and butter isn't anything. But the relationships tell what knives and butter are. You know how knives relate to butter intuitively. Everything about knives and butter is made up of relationships! (not just to eachother)
I think you have at last transended to the second echelon of emergence and are now a stream rear-enterer. Bravo!:p
Emergence is luminescence
No it isn't. at least not in the sense scientists, philsophers, systems theorists and humans use it;)
No it isn't. at least not in the sense scientists, philsophers, systems theorists and humans use it
Reality is sometimes described as the union between appearance and emptiness. Luminescence is a synonym for appearance. Mat I think if you can get past the mysticism that you as an occultist (scientist of ancient cultures) can extract some 'righteous, bodacious, and gnarly' knowledge. Don't limit yourself my friend.
Mat I think if you can get past the mysticism that you as an occultist (scientist of ancient cultures) can extract some 'righteous, bodacious, and gnarly' knowledge.
Mat if the universe is a dot it is pretty meaningless. but if it has two dots then the meaning of each dot is expressed in relationship to eachother. Our very concepts of a dot are formed in relationship to how we have seen dots interact with other elements.
Since the meaning of all elements are in how they interact rather than their SELF that means that we have nothing really except emergence.
but it is not emergence from discrete dot selves. It is emergence from elements which only have meaning in relationships.
Magic mind play as some see it.
So if something is desirable it is only in relationship to a fixed idea. I want my beer to be full. If we decide it is not what we want = suffering.
In my lineage we would say the 'fixed' idea is 'fixed' because it is not clear open or sensitive enough. Well it is but part of the sensitivity is the suffer haha.
Transcendence of suffering is when it again is only sensitivity.
I belive the Three Marks are self evident, I cannot doubt them, I have tried. This is my point:)
The same is not true of rebirth, god, jesus, zeus, majic, fairies and of course, santa.
I see them all as the same kind of belief. Why is your belief in rebirth any stronger than a child's in santa?
Your words are those of a materialist. This is an act of grasping. You project the image of having your "beliefs" sorted out neat and clean. There is the self-evident category, and the superstition category.
MatSalted, the point of our practice is to let go of beliefs. Period. They are surely delusions of your ego. From my POV as your reader, you seem to pick and choose your way through the body of the Buddha Dhamma teachings, which of course is your right to do as you see fit, but you then go on to make some pretty massive, illogical leaps by equating those things you have personally come to understand as "self evident" versus those things you simply do not understand as "Santa" or "Fairies" etc. Perhaps it would behoove you to accept some truth here, namely that as a "virgin Buddhist" there just might be some concepts of the practice you've yet to understand yet, and as a result, it is best that you release the powerful need you have to pretend you've already figured it out. That does not bode well for development.
Just keep in mind that the #1 trick of the ego is to sort through things so they are "SELF EVIDENT". I would suggest some deep reflection on what and who this so-called "self" actually is.
I truly hope this can be received positively and in the gentle spirit it is being offered. I realize it is challenging feedback to read, and can only suggest to you that the reason I was moved to respond to you here is simple......recognition! LOL. I've touched that hot stove before dear friend, I really have.
Didn't the Buddha specifically admonish his monks that speculative questions such as "Is there a God? Was the universe created? Will it end?" were all unskillful and were to be abandoned? I mean, at least in the Pali Canon I've read this before (I think).
Yes. I have read that too. The Buddha only taught about suffering and the cessation of suffering for those who recognize that they are suffering and want to get rid of that suffering.
Apart from that, I have not seen (at least not in the core Buddhist teachings), the Buddha being concerned about the beginning of the world, the end of the world, where we go after death, is there a God etc. He identified all of them as irrelevant for the cessation of suffering here and now.
I am happy being called a materialist, I believe the Buddha would have been too, though I prefer Systems to "material."
This is an act of grasping.
Grasping for the truth out of a sea of error?
You project the image of having your "beliefs" sorted out neat and clean.
When it comes to core dharma, yes, pretty much.
MatSalted, the point of our practice is to let go of beliefs.
Please don't tell me the point of my practice, and I wont tell you the point of yours.
I think much gets embroiled in the "letting go", for me its attachment and delusions that I want to let go of, I certainly dont want to let go of the dharmic truths.
They are surely delusions of your ego.
Maybe they are, me, I am not so sure:)
From my POV as your reader, you seem to pick and choose your way through the body of the Buddha Dhamma teachings
I reject it all and only "pick" that which cannot be rejected. EG The 4NT, DO, karma, Three Marks.....
Stuff that stays rejected, like majic, is that which can be rejected.
You then go on to make some pretty massive, illogical leaps by equating those things you have personally come to understand as "self evident" versus those things you simply do not understand as "Santa" or "Fairies" etc.
They are not illogical. Quite the contrary.
In terms of confirmation, reason, method it strikes me as pretty clear that santa and devas share the same theortical space. Can you tell me where I am illogical.
Perhaps it would behoove you to accept some truth here, namely that as a "virgin Buddhist" there just might be some concepts of the practice you've yet to understand yet,
You misunderstand, Virgin Biddhism means I just am interested in what was around in the time of the Buddha, pure Dharma without all the extras added over the millenia. I have been studing dharmic philosophy for nearly a decade and western analytical for two.
and as a result, it is best that you release the powerful need you have to pretend you've already figured it out.
I think I have figured it out. I think you probably have too. But because of the mystification of dharma you think there is so much more and I think there is so much less.
Dont forget in the time of the buddha enlightenments were speedy and abundant, or so we are told.
That does not bode well for development.
I would like to get better at meditation for sure. Morally and philosohically I think i am a pretty well developed buddhist, like most here seem to be:)
I would suggest some deep reflection on what and who this so-called "self" actually is.
I am very aware of what it is, thanks. You might like to see my texts or videos on www.salted.net. Do tell me any errors I have made in my understanding of self.
By the way, I was studying and teaching about self in a western philosophcial sense before I understood the dharmic sense and I think the buddha got it right.
I truly hope this can be received positively and in the gentle spirit it is being offered.
Sure:) Sure:)
I realize it is challenging feedback to read
No it isnt, at least not this. You are just saying i am mistaken naive etc etc rather than actually telling me where I am going wrong. I am very used to it.
Show me where rebirth fits in to dharma. Show me how there can be rebirth when all systems are imperminent and empty. Show me why enligtenment is so hidden in the depths of lifelong practice today when it wasnt in the time of the Buddha.
Yes. I have read that too. The Buddha only taught about suffering and the cessation of suffering for those who recognize that they are suffering and want to get rid of that suffering.
Apart from that, I have not seen (at least not in the core Buddhist teachings), the Buddha being concerned about the beginning of the world, the end of the world, where we go after death, is there a God etc. He identified all of them as irrelevant for the cessation of suffering here and now.
I saw these on accesstoinsight.org :
MN 63 Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
MN 63 Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
AN 7.51 Avyakata Sutta: Undeclared
Great! Thanks Pearl for pointing out the suttas. It shows that the Buddha was not concerned about the existence of God, beginning and end of the world etc. It is not relevant to cessation of Dukkha
The Buddha taught 84,000 different methods based on the variety of human minds. What makes any of us think we can know and master each one.
There is plenty of room for all the Buddhist schools, branches and lineages. It's all good.
If it helps someone's mediatation to consider rebirth so be it. If it doesn't then don't take up the teachings, go to what you do know and understand well.
There is plenty of room for all the Buddhist schools, branches and lineages. It's all good.
If it helps someone's mediatation to consider rebirth so be it. If it doesn't then don't take up the teachings, go to what you do know and understand well.
Agreed!
Yet, I wonder if thinking about rebirth could be useful in refining deeper views, like understanding a middle way between views of eternalism and nihilism. It might be worth pondering, but not in an argumentative way.
One question I have had is, who were these nihilists of Buddha's time? What was it in their views that made the Buddha want to distance himself from them?
Yet, I wonder if thinking about rebirth could be useful in refining deeper views
Rebirth view is not a factor of the path to enlightenment and the Buddha has said so clearly in suttas.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Rebirth view is taught by the Buddha as a belief which promotes morality and entertains ego clinging
It is not mentioned in Buddha's core teachings like the dependent origination as well.
Why do we need to believe in rebirth without knowing what it is that survives after the physical body breaks and materializes in a a womb or in some kind of a cosmic plane? I believed in rebirth sometimes back but after reading the DO and comparing it with the original pali suttas I no longer think it is at least a bit relevant to the cessation of dukkha here and now. The more you entertain it the more you cling to the ego. But well, if it makes someone happy......
Comments
Why do you keep attacking other people's belief in rebirth? Seriously, don't you find that offensive?
Excuse me, Ren started attacking my beliefs and refused to allow me to have them.
Even if I wasn't defedning myself, to be honest, if someone wants to talk about a concept I wont feel any qualms about how that talk goes, equally back at me:)
You cant come to an internet debate forum and then get prissy when people don't agree with you.
Don't debate if you dont want somone to argue back:)
The second noble truth states that the cause of dukkha is desire. So a non-sentient universe would also need to have desire in order for their to be dukkha.
Is the meaning of desire preserved if you some how ascribe desire onto stars? Are you Hindu?
Obviously it doesn't feel good, does it? So why are you doing the same to other people? I am not prissy, it is just something I would personally ask myself. If I know something is harmful and it has been done to me, how is that an excuse to do the same to other people?
I believe a universe with no sentience a any point in any of its dimensions would contain dukka. Absolutely. I take it you didnt think about my previous thoughts on this.
I dont care what is stated, i care what is true and demonstrable.
I belive dukka is true of all systems, I can show this and show what it entails.
Please pay more attention to what i am sayig.
Jeffrey, i had you ignored for weeks and just unignored you because you dont debate you state. Please try to debate, ping pong:)
You are showing a primary school equation of dukka with "suffering".It is a complex term. As in Tanha.
Mat
Why are you defending yourself? You're not under attack.
Exactly.
Super. lets ignore each other:)
Phew!
I dont mind it at all to be honest, apart from its futility and timewasting.
it is an internet form not Ren's meditation mat:)
Stay cool
I dont see the differnce between debate and discussion etc... i mean a talk on an internet forum.
And no of course i dont reject the second noble truth
Your argument is
But you also say...
So my question is how is it that they possess dukkha without desire given that desire is the cause of dukkha?
I had a look at that some time ago, and found nothing that addressed the _evidence_ relating to the reliability of the Nikayas and Agamas. If you want to use something there as a response to something here, please post it. I'm not wading through the page again in an attempt to find something relevant, and I'm not going to guess what you think is relevant.
This is irrelevant. We're discussing the historical issue of what the Buddha believed, along with relevant evidence. We're not discussing what you doubt or believe.
I cant explain this if you dont understand emergence and abstraction, which are very simple concepts.
Dukka is true of all systems.
Emergent systems will experince dukka as suffering.
Suffering is also caused by the ignorance of emptiness and impermanence as well as other abstract causes (diminishing returns etc)
Just a general comment. I could not understand a lot of what you have been saying the past months because I didn't have these details about what you believed (and no I'm not going to read a whole website hehe). I find these conversations constructive and I often point out what I find disagreeable in your system moreso to find out why you believe it rather than to change your mind, I think.
Can you explain the question in detail please?
First of all you wondered if I understood 'emergence'. Its not a matter of whether I understand it, but a matter of never having heard it use. Emerge means come out of. Thats ALL I know of emergence. So my question was a request for whether you would be willing to explain to me what emergence means. I don't have time to trace your footsteps and read every book you have ever read. But if you can introduce in something that takes 1 minute to write and read?
Second you said that emergent systems dukkha is experienced as suffering. I have read that the cause of dukkha is desire. I am guessing that an emergent system would also have desire? So my question is what about the non-emergent systems. They too have dukkha. I guess my unwritten third question is what dukkha means in a system that does not suffer? My second question would be if you believe that the 2nd noble truth only applies to emergent systems? In a non-emergent system would the cause of dukkha be something other than desire. Remember Buddha said the cause of dukkha was desire. Translators have translated two pali words one dukkha and one which was translated into desire.
So I have a curiosity about this whole body of theory that you had prior to studying the dharma. What is emergence? Explain Dukkha in both an emergent and non-emergent system? Do the four noble truths only apply to emergent systems or both? Is 'desire' in the four noble truths translated into an english word that does not fit? If you think THAT is that based on your knowledge of the Pali original translation or is it just a guess so that Buddha's ideas fit into your existing body of knowledge?
We don't know, but its kinda weird that in one hand the remnant texts endorse universal skepticism and in the other forbid philosophical enquiry. yes another reason for me to doubt their consistency and accuracy:)
I got a degree in polymer chemistry and learned about polymers. No elements of mysticism there. Are you saying that within 100 years universities could possibly insert mystical elements into polymer chemistry? Or no? No would suggest that you believe that the renaissance had a greater change on the human consciousness than buddha did? Descartes > Buddha?
Emmergence is the only majic,
You get something for nothing,
New properties for free.
no I said sentient systems.
Try thinking, it makes a fine partner to reading:)
All systems emmerge or are designed.
All systems are subject to the three marks, including dukka.
What does red mean in a tomato?
Dukka is a property of systems. Depending on the system complexity the abstraction of dukka will change. Nonsentient systems will exhibit it in theior behavoir or their processes. Bacteria or galaxies, all subject to dukka.
You are confusing emmergent system with sentient. See above and think about it.
I don't entertain that anymore here, its pointless. the Buddha didnt speak pali and I reject the texts as philosophically relevant, prefering to start from first principles.
Yet again you misrepresent me. yawn. To recap, I am happy to pretend the buddha never existed and talk dharma that way.
He was, after all, just a man, if he exitsed at all.
So why cant we start again with dharma?
Discover what he discovered?
We dont know if ananda exited or anyone else. it was 500 years and 1500 miles. My personal belief is that the mystic distortion came in those five centuries, long after his disciples were dead.
I think he was:) I read the "self-mortification" avoidance as being the entire mystical realm:) is that such a far streatch?
Please anser my questions this time
In my next post I will line item response to you. But first I must cut and paste your whole post <sigh>.
I don't get it
Got it
Explain this to me. In english suffering is the translation of dukkha. I can see a relationship between desire and suffering. Score one for my thinking. I do not see a way to deanthropomorphize suffering and desire into clouds. Sorry.
All systems are magic and get something for nothing. See above I don't get this. Does the magic come from God? Where does the magic come from?
Not sure where this quote is cut from
Are you saying that in tomatos dukkha is their color? What in a tomato corresponds to dukkha?
Do the 4 noble truths only apply to sentients?
Ok so your theory is that the buddhas original correct meaning was mistranslated into Pali, which eventually in turn got translated into english. A lot like my previous response I mean I get the concept of 'telephone' but are you saying his disciples of 40 years did not understand him and mistranslated into Pali? Why do you understand him through all the layers of translation without ever hearing buddha in his native tongue, yet his disciples who studied with him giving up house home and comfort did not?
Ok I answered your questions. Now my turn. If Buddha's disciples who devoted their entire lives to following him got it so wrong. What makes you think some dudes who are on the internet because they love 'dogmatic buddhism' will be able to absorb your message?
I suggest you be your own light on it then:)
Clouds do not suffer, if they were sentient, they would:) I am not saying nonsentient things suffer, I am saying they are subject to the same three marks of existance.
You have two points and nothing else. Then you add a third point and suddenly you have the possibility of "betweenness". Where does that betweeness come from?
No, you missread.
There is no binary cut off point between sentient and nonsentient. Are dogs subject to the four noble truths? Monkeys? Apes? Mice?
That is one of numerous possibilities. I imagine it was various forces over the millenia rather than simple translation errors.
What is important is that we cannot know, categorically, if any aspect of what we have today as Buddhism is what was around in the time of the buddha.
Gawd I dont think that at all. As said, I imagine the distortions came long after they were all dead. but again, how can we know for sure.
errr, I don't have a message and I am not interested in trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, that is the dogma i find so unwholesome in all aspects of life.
I do wish everyone was more questioning!
dount everything,
be your own light
Mat
What a great post, shadowleaver! It's definitely food for thought.
I've heard that when the Buddha lived, it was a very philosophically active time in India, and while many people believed in rebirth with an eternal essence/soul, there were other people who denied the existence of an afterlife. The Buddha thought both views missed the mark.
There's a story about the Buddha where a man comes to visit him and asks several questions. One question was whether the Buddha would exist or not exist after death. The Buddha refuses to answer the man.
Emergent = relative aka the movie
Space = emptiness aka the screen
There you go
The points are sentient beings and the boundaries between them (in the case of sentients) have no dimensions.
My lama's husband is a mathematician
In order for rebirth to be true the connections between points must go outside of space and time according to my lama
I hope oneday you can explain that to me:)
Now I get your game! ta da
I have no idea what you are talking about:)
What does "relative" mean relative to emmergence?
What have you been readng to show you this, it must have been in the last hour so can you send me the link?
Mat
Maybe not in the Pali. Mahayana scripture talks a LOT about the relative. Also known as the two truths. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form (heart sutra). The relative is made up of space. Space is made up of the relative.
Where is relative mentioned in buddhist literature?
are you joking here?
Mat this means that knives aren't anything and butter isn't anything. But the relationships tell what knives and butter are. You know how knives relate to butter intuitively. Everything about knives and butter is made up of relationships! (not just to eachother)
Emergence is luminescence... and emptiness is not being dogmatic about the relationships but rather clearly seeing them so to speak.
quick google Nagarjuna
I think you have at last transended to the second echelon of emergence and are now a stream rear-enterer. Bravo!:p
No it isn't. at least not in the sense scientists, philsophers, systems theorists and humans use it;)
Reality is sometimes described as the union between appearance and emptiness. Luminescence is a synonym for appearance. Mat I think if you can get past the mysticism that you as an occultist (scientist of ancient cultures) can extract some 'righteous, bodacious, and gnarly' knowledge. Don't limit yourself my friend.
Its been fun. Frustrating but fun:)
Since the meaning of all elements are in how they interact rather than their SELF that means that we have nothing really except emergence.
but it is not emergence from discrete dot selves. It is emergence from elements which only have meaning in relationships.
Magic mind play as some see it.
So if something is desirable it is only in relationship to a fixed idea. I want my beer to be full. If we decide it is not what we want = suffering.
In my lineage we would say the 'fixed' idea is 'fixed' because it is not clear open or sensitive enough. Well it is but part of the sensitivity is the suffer haha.
Transcendence of suffering is when it again is only sensitivity.
Try everything I've read (seemingly) in the past 4 years regarding buddhism? Want me to send it to you? hehe
Your words are those of a materialist. This is an act of grasping. You project the image of having your "beliefs" sorted out neat and clean. There is the self-evident category, and the superstition category.
MatSalted, the point of our practice is to let go of beliefs. Period. They are surely delusions of your ego. From my POV as your reader, you seem to pick and choose your way through the body of the Buddha Dhamma teachings, which of course is your right to do as you see fit, but you then go on to make some pretty massive, illogical leaps by equating those things you have personally come to understand as "self evident" versus those things you simply do not understand as "Santa" or "Fairies" etc. Perhaps it would behoove you to accept some truth here, namely that as a "virgin Buddhist" there just might be some concepts of the practice you've yet to understand yet, and as a result, it is best that you release the powerful need you have to pretend you've already figured it out. That does not bode well for development.
Just keep in mind that the #1 trick of the ego is to sort through things so they are "SELF EVIDENT". I would suggest some deep reflection on what and who this so-called "self" actually is.
I truly hope this can be received positively and in the gentle spirit it is being offered. I realize it is challenging feedback to read, and can only suggest to you that the reason I was moved to respond to you here is simple......recognition! LOL. I've touched that hot stove before dear friend, I really have.
Yes. I have read that too. The Buddha only taught about suffering and the cessation of suffering for those who recognize that they are suffering and want to get rid of that suffering.
Apart from that, I have not seen (at least not in the core Buddhist teachings), the Buddha being concerned about the beginning of the world, the end of the world, where we go after death, is there a God etc. He identified all of them as irrelevant for the cessation of suffering here and now.
I am happy being called a materialist, I believe the Buddha would have been too, though I prefer Systems to "material."
Grasping for the truth out of a sea of error?
When it comes to core dharma, yes, pretty much.
Please don't tell me the point of my practice, and I wont tell you the point of yours.
I think much gets embroiled in the "letting go", for me its attachment and delusions that I want to let go of, I certainly dont want to let go of the dharmic truths.
Maybe they are, me, I am not so sure:)
I reject it all and only "pick" that which cannot be rejected. EG The 4NT, DO, karma, Three Marks.....
Stuff that stays rejected, like majic, is that which can be rejected.
They are not illogical. Quite the contrary.
In terms of confirmation, reason, method it strikes me as pretty clear that santa and devas share the same theortical space. Can you tell me where I am illogical.
You misunderstand, Virgin Biddhism means I just am interested in what was around in the time of the Buddha, pure Dharma without all the extras added over the millenia. I have been studing dharmic philosophy for nearly a decade and western analytical for two.
I think I have figured it out. I think you probably have too. But because of the mystification of dharma you think there is so much more and I think there is so much less.
Dont forget in the time of the buddha enlightenments were speedy and abundant, or so we are told.
I would like to get better at meditation for sure. Morally and philosohically I think i am a pretty well developed buddhist, like most here seem to be:)
I am very aware of what it is, thanks. You might like to see my texts or videos on www.salted.net. Do tell me any errors I have made in my understanding of self.
By the way, I was studying and teaching about self in a western philosophcial sense before I understood the dharmic sense and I think the buddha got it right.
Sure:) Sure:)
No it isnt, at least not this. You are just saying i am mistaken naive etc etc rather than actually telling me where I am going wrong. I am very used to it.
Show me where rebirth fits in to dharma. Show me how there can be rebirth when all systems are imperminent and empty. Show me why enligtenment is so hidden in the depths of lifelong practice today when it wasnt in the time of the Buddha.
Peace
Mat
I saw these on accesstoinsight.org :
MN 63 Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
AN 7.51 Avyakata Sutta: Undeclared
Great! Thanks Pearl for pointing out the suttas. It shows that the Buddha was not concerned about the existence of God, beginning and end of the world etc. It is not relevant to cessation of Dukkha
There is plenty of room for all the Buddhist schools, branches and lineages. It's all good.
If it helps someone's mediatation to consider rebirth so be it. If it doesn't then don't take up the teachings, go to what you do know and understand well.
Agreed!
Yet, I wonder if thinking about rebirth could be useful in refining deeper views, like understanding a middle way between views of eternalism and nihilism. It might be worth pondering, but not in an argumentative way.
One question I have had is, who were these nihilists of Buddha's time? What was it in their views that made the Buddha want to distance himself from them?
Rebirth view is not a factor of the path to enlightenment and the Buddha has said so clearly in suttas.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta
Rebirth view is taught by the Buddha as a belief which promotes morality and entertains ego clinging
It is not mentioned in Buddha's core teachings like the dependent origination as well.
Why do we need to believe in rebirth without knowing what it is that survives after the physical body breaks and materializes in a a womb or in some kind of a cosmic plane?