Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:22 am**

nowheat wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:I have a question for the secular Buddhists in the room. Do you believe that it is possible to attain Nirvana, the deathless state devoid of suffering, unshakable and pure in conduct?

The reason I ask is its something I always wrestle with yet it never comes up in faith or supernatural debates. Nirvana is a remarkable and transcendent state in which suffering shall never return. Sounds almost magical to me even if I do have some faith that the Buddha really attained such a state.

Or do you believe that we just get a little more pure and happy and then a little more pure and happy and then we die? There would be nothing immoral with that but I'm not sure it would qualify as Buddhism.
Is this question about *belief* or *faith*? You ask about belief, but your personal answer is *faith*.

Correct. One will have doubt about nirvana lingering until they glimpse it through the woods (stream entry). My question is do you think Nirvana is true, false, or "it's complicated"?

And the reason I ask this is when doubt creeps up real strong for me it becomes tempting to dump the whole of Buddhism because without nirvana you don't have Buddhism.

The buddha taught conviction/faith built on a trust in his teachings built on previous successes with subduing suffering. It is not a blind faith but it is still conviction. True unwaverin conviction only comes with stream entry (personal glimpse of nirvana). Do secular Buddhists see a role for conviction that nibbana is the final cessation of suffering?

Without that I really don't think you are talking about Buddhism. There is nothing more central than nirvana and this is what moves Buddhism from "philosophy" to "religion". IMO

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:10 am**

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:That isn't (to my way of thinking) 'making the Dhamma fit the physical sciences' as you might say, although I do test the dhamma against the sciences. It is more like accepting the best of both bodies of expertise.
Well since both disciplines are based on observation of reality, ...
Hmm, that's not your usual line about it all being subjective experience, etc... Did I miss something?

One is connected to nirodha and observes the world (loka), as it was expounded by the Buddha.

One is connected to views and observes the world (loka), as understood by putthujana.

They both observe reality, just with different frames of reference - one vertical, one horizontal - one supra-mundane, one mundane... so on, and so forth.

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:14 am**

retrofuturist wrote: One is connected to nirodha and observes the world (loka), as it was expounded by the Buddha.

One is connected to views and observes the world (loka), as understood by putthujana.

They both observe reality, just with different frames of reference - one vertical, one horizontal - one supra-mundane, one mundane... so on, and so forth.

Sorry, I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As far as I am concerned, in both science and Dhamma all we have are out observations, and whether there is anything real or not is just philosophical speculation. But of course I know we have different interpretations of the suttas.

Mike

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:20 am**

Mundane and supramundane ? There is more than one reality ?

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:22 am**

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

No need to apologize...

mikenz66 wrote:But of course I know we have different interpretations of the suttas.

Yes, but I don't see what your repeated discomfiture about this fact has to do with this topic?

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:23 am**

Greetings Sanghamitta,

Sanghamitta wrote:Mundane and supramundane ? There is more than one reality ?

Just above I wrote:They both observe reality, just with different frames of reference

So no, I'm not proclaiming "more than one reality", but there are different views of it.

MN 117 wrote:"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 brahmans & 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.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

There are of course others, but the two above serve to distinguish between putthujana right view, and noble right view. Science need not be either, it is just putthujana (even if someone goes for refuge to a test tube, lab-coat and bunsen burner

)

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:39 am**

Buckwheat wrote:I have a question for the secular Buddhists in the room. Do you believe that it is possible to attain Nirvana, the deathless state devoid of suffering, unshakable and pure in conduct?

The reason I ask is its something I always wrestle with yet it never comes up in faith or supernatural debates. Nirvana is a remarkable and transcendent state in which suffering shall never return. Sounds almost magical to me even if I do have some faith that the Buddha really attained such a state.

Or do you believe that we just get a little more pure and happy and then a little more pure and happy and then we die? There would be nothing immoral with that but I'm not sure it would qualify as Buddhism.

Sure, why not.

It's not a big deal to believe that something you know and have experienced can be overcome and cease to arise, nibbana is defined in terms of the cessation of something very normal. Easier than believing in something you don't know and haven't experienced.

But I wouldn't say no to a bit more pureness and happiness either.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:42 am**

Greetings,

Goofaholix wrote:It's not a big deal to believe that something you know and have experienced can be overcome and cease to arise, nibbana is defined in terms of the cessation of something very normal. Easier than believing in something you don't know and haven't experienced.

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:42 am**

This snippet got a lot of play in the "great rebirth" debate from the anti-rebirthers, but it has always puzzled me as to what those who quote this text think it is saying. And sorry to say, it no more clearer here than than in its earlier usages. So, what do think this text is saying? In reading this, what should I be getting from it, if you please?

retrofuturist wrote:So no, there are not "more than one reality" but there are different views of it.

MN 117 wrote:"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 brahmans & 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.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.
There are of course others, but the two above serve to distinguish between putthujana right view, and noble right view. Science need not be either, it is just putthujana (even if someone goes for refuge to a test tube, lab-coat and bunsen burner )

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:48 am**

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:This snippet got a lot of play in the "great rebirth" debate from the anti-rebirthers, but it has always puzzled me as to what those who quote this text think it is saying. So, what do think this text is saying? In reading this, what should I be getting from it, if you please?

To make clear the differentiation of use, compared to that frequently expressed in the Great Rebirth Debate... both are right view.

The first directly supports white/good kamma, whereas the second directly supports the "kamma that ends kamma"... and if the starting point is putthujana, they both lead in the right direction (hence both being right view) even if only the second is "a factor of the (noble) path".

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:51 am**

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:But of course I know we have different interpretations of the suttas.
Yes, but I don't see what your repeated discomfiture about this fact has to do with this topic?

That there are a variety of interpretations of the suttas is highly relevant, as I pointed out above. Our different approaches to the Dhamma are the result of different conditioning. I'm of the opinion that I follow the Suttas in my practice. So are you. So is Steve Batchelor. And so are innumerable others. Any differences in interpretation is due to our past experience, etc.

There is no way to tell by logical reasoning whether:

(a) The particular interpretation makes much difference; or
(b) If it does make a difference, which approaches are effective and which are not.

In general, people will keep using an approach they happen to have confidence in, for whatever reason (often for quite good reasons, such as: "It seems to be working."), and this is just as true of "secular" as "traditional" Buddhists.

Now, my opinion, based on observation, is that quite a variety of approaches seem to work for a different people, so I'm inclined to think that the details are not so important as long as one has a reasonably coherent approach.

Mike

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:54 am**

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Our different approaches to the Dhamma are the result of different conditioning. I'm of the opinion that I follow the Suttas in my practice. So are you. So is Steve Batchelor. And so are innumerable others. Any differences in interpretation is due to our past experience, etc.

Is anyone saying otherwise? It might be time to let this go, Mike.

mikenz66 wrote:Now, my opinion, based on observation, is that quite a variety of approaches seem to work for a different people, so I'm inclined to think that the details are not so important as long as one has a reasonably coherent approach.

Good, great. Once again, no one is suggesting otherwise. Can the projection please cease now? It grows wearisome to respond to these same projections as the years roll by. There are more beneficial things to discuss.

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:02 am**

retrofuturist wrote: Good, great. Once again, no one is suggesting otherwise. Can the projection please cease now? It grows wearisome to respond to these same projections as the years roll by.

Sure, It grows wearisome to be told that there is such a thing as a "sutta method" and that some of us are practising something else, so I'll be very pleased if we could drop that particular projection...

Anyway, back to the actual topic. This point is highly relevant to this discussion. Stephen Batchelor is practising a "sutta method" just as much as you are, but you have (I think) come to rather different conclusions.

Mike

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:09 am**

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Stephen Batchelor is practising a "sutta method" just as much as you are, but you have (I think) come to rather different conclusions.

You think wrong then (and continue to project accordingly).

Metta,
Retro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:12 am**

retrofuturist wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:This snippet got a lot of play in the "great rebirth" debate from the anti-rebirthers, but it has always puzzled me as to what those who quote this text think it is saying. So, what do think this text is saying? In reading this, what should I be getting from it, if you please?
To make clear the differentiation of use, compared to that frequently expressed in the Great Rebirth Debate... both are right view.

The first directly supports white/good kamma, whereas the second directly supports the "kamma that ends kamma"... and if the starting point is putthujana, they both lead in the right direction (hence both being right view) even if only the second is "a factor of the (noble) path".

As has been discussed before, that part of the sutta is almost certainly a insertion from later Commentary. It does, however, seem consistent with the rest of the Canon.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 814#p23845" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dhammanando wrote:Hi Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:As I said over here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the idea of mundane/supermundane right view there seems to be directly from the Abhidhamma, and is the only Sutta I've read where that sort of exposition is presented. Are there others?
No, the Mahacattarisaka Sutta is unique.

I should note that the designations 'mundane' and 'supramundane' for these two right view are actually from the Petakopadesa and Nettipakarana, two early treatises on hermeneutics. At MN. 117 the distinction is expressed with the words 'sāsava' and 'anāsava', "accompanied by cankers" and "free of cankers" respectively.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

Mike

Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Re: The Secular Buddhist