Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Somewhat related to the discussion in this thread, I have to ask: Is it absolutely necessary to speak of the dhamma in terms of the negative, in order for the teaching to be clear?

What I mean is, I have a preference for more positive language in a way that, to me, seems to carry the same meaning but approaches the extinction of ego from a different angle that feels safer and more comfortable.

"Storehouse consciousness" instead of "all mental processes stop."

"Expanding infinitely in all directions," instead of "being extinguished".

True life and abiding happiness, not merely the "deathless" and the "cessation of suffering."

...That Nirvana is true self, Emptiness is true self, Buddha-nature is one's true nature... Are these ideas just different ways of stating Theravada Buddhist teachings or are they completely contrary to the Pali canon?

Greetings Individual,

Yes, I think it is necessary, because otherwise the teachings would just point to the heavenly realms, and that's not what the Dhamma is about.

I see no reason though to think of them as negative (in a qualitative sense) simply because they negate something.

Renunciation is the key.

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Individual

I would ask you, are you talking about the same things?
One of the reasons that Nibbana is described with terms of negation is that it is so far removed from mundane human experience that the most precise method of describing nibbana is by defining it by negating what we know and experience.

Also, if you look at the canon and look at how the Buddha describes liberation, the translators have used the same linguistic conventions. Be careful that you do not associate negation as being morally or emotionally negative. Also be careful in substituting 'positive' synonyms, that you do not dilute the meaning of what is being said!
Metta

Ben

Individual wrote:I have a preference for more positive language in a way that, to me, seems to carry the same meaning but approaches the extinction of ego from a different angle that feels safer and more comfortable.

I'm not sure if we can get to the extinction of ego in a manner that is safe and comfortable.

Greetings Jechbi,

Jechbi wrote:I'm not sure if we can get to the extinction of ego in a manner that is safe and comfortable.

Not without positing the kind of "universal self" or "unity with Brahma" that the Buddha rejected.

Metta,
Retro.

What do you think about Nagasena's description of Nibbana in the Milinda-Panha?

Like the wishing jewel, Nirvana grants all one can desire, brings joy, and sheds light.

Greetings Individual,

Individual wrote:What do you think about Nagasena's description of Nibbana in the Milinda-Panha?

Post canonical

Metta,
Retro.

Individual wrote:True life and abiding happiness, not merely the "deathless" and the "cessation of suffering."

In the Dhammapada, the Buddha states:

Sankharam paramam dukkham
Nibbanam paramam sukkham

Concocting is the supreme suffering
Nibbana is the supreme happiness

Buddhadasa once said this is to entice the youngsters.

Individual wrote:Somewhat related to the discussion in this thread, I have to ask: Is it absolutely necessary to speak of the dhamma in terms of the negative, in order for the teaching to be clear?

Individual

The answer to your question is "yes". Buddha taught:

I teach only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

To study Dhamma in the right way is to comprehend those things that are dukkha so they can be abandoned or foresaken. In Buddhism, the genuine "positive state" arises from the removal of the negative state.

For example, when a car has rust there are two choices. Remove the rust or simply mask it by painting over it. Buddha recommended to remove the rust. Underneath the rust there is shiny metal or luminous original mind.

E

Individual wrote:"Storehouse consciousness" instead of "all mental processes stop."

"Expanding infinitely in all directions," instead of "being extinguished".

However, I have offered on numerous occassions previously the right comprehension of the five aggregates as emptiness.

The practise of satipatthana is seeing "form is form, feeling is feeling....consciousness is consciousness". To paraphrase the Buddha in MN 121, the practitioner must see what is there before seeing what is not there.

To see consciousness as merely consciousness, to examine it clearly with insight as to see no 'self' abiding within the consciousness element, is the same as seeing voidness. Form is voidness, voidness is form. To comprehend this, the practitioner must examine the form itself rather than reaching for the moon of voidness. The tree is to be climbed from the bottom and not from the top.

When Siddharta was the bodhisatta, searching for enlightenment, he practised the very same practises the Mahayana and Zennies hold to be enlightenment. Siddharta, practising the immaterial jhanas, was practising stopping all mental processes. Siddharta's enlightenment arose when he ceased stopping all mental processes but instead, examined the very nature of the body-mind. Buddha used his mind as a microscope to examine closely and clearly the true nature of phenomena rather than stopping all mental processes.

This distinction is that of concentration and insight. Concentration is the stopping of mental processes and insight is seeing the true nature of the five aggregates.

It is not Theravada that has negative language but those miscomprehending. This occurs from trying to climb the tree from the top. When the tree is climbed from the bottom, it is done so by practising the satipatthana, by seeing 'what is what'. Buddha always taught about the five aggregates yet many seem to think enlightenment is free of the five aggregates.

With metta

Eleemment

if something stops and ends it stops and ends
saying it is stored is saying it doesn't end.

interpreting things in an opposing way is not always possible

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

Individual wrote:What do you think about Nagasena's description of Nibbana in the Milinda-Panha?

Post canonical

Metta,
Retro.

Even post-canonical works are often beautiful expressions of clarity.

Heaven by Rupert Brooke

Fish (fly-replete, in depth of June,
Dawdling away their wat'ry noon)
Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear,
Each secret fishy hope or fear.
Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond?
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!
One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.
We darkly know, by Faith we cry,
The future is not Wholly Dry.
Mud unto mud! -- - Death eddies near -- -
Not here the appointed End, not here!
But somewhere, beyond Space and Time.
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.
Oh! never fly conceals a hook,
Fish say, in the Eternal Brook,
But more than mundane weeds are there,
And mud, celestially fair;
Fat caterpillars drift around,
And Paradisal grubs are found;
Unfading moths, immortal flies,
And the worm that never dies.
And in that Heaven of all their wish,
There shall be no more land, say fish.

Element wrote:For example, when a car has rust there are two choices. Remove the rust or simply mask it by painting over it. Buddha recommended to remove the rust. Underneath the rust there is shiny metal or luminous original mind.

Yes, but would the Buddha have to express it as, "There is rust everywhere. My teaching is for the removal of rust"?

Could he not also say, "Everywhere, there is luminosity, luster, shining light, only hidden by rust. My teaching is for the realization of this hidden luminosity"?

With metta ,
Individual

If it seems relevant, the medical profession adheres to the injunction, "Do no harm." It does not adhere to the injunction, "Do a lot of good." Why? My guess is that we invariably do harm of one kind or another and it behooves us to be on our toes. Further, once we utter the word "good," the world fills up with endless interpretations, many of them leading to a good deal of harm.

genkaku wrote:If it seems relevant, the medical profession adheres to the injunction, "Do no harm." It does not adhere to the injunction, "Do a lot of good." Why? My guess is that we invariably do harm of one kind or another and it behooves us to be on our toes. Further, once we utter the word "good," the world fills up with endless interpretations, many of them leading to a good deal of harm.

You are right, Genkaku. However, with the strict and cold maxim, "Do no harm," you do not create doctors like Patch Adams.

With metta ,
Individual

i think no one can guarantee permanant happiness- that would be a lie- as happiness itself is impermanant- the only truth is the cessation of suffering (it almost goes without saying- but it has been said clearly by the buddha that he is not leading his bikkhus towards suffering but to calm, mindful, blissful mental states- but even these arise and pass away- no doubt more frequently). Saying 'I teach more frequent happiness' doesnt quite have the same ring to it for me.
to talk of positives or negatives in terms of nibbana would be a falacy- at least talkng of nibbana in the negative is closer to the truth