Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

appicchato wrote:

kannada wrote:Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas...

There's only one Dhamma...everything else is a dhamma...

In Dhamma there are no dhammas...

appicchato wrote:

kannada wrote:Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas...

There's only one Dhamma...everything else is a dhamma...

This is Diamond Sutra stuff.

kannada wrote:

appicchato wrote:

kannada wrote:Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas...

There's only one Dhamma...everything else is a dhamma...

In Dhamma there are no dhammas...

Of course, it depends....

kannada wrote: In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions... No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...

Only so as a conceptual structure. Reality of things seems to be a bit different.

tiltbillings wrote:This is Diamond Sutra stuff.

Says you...

appicchato wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:This is Diamond Sutra stuff.

Says you...

Says me.

I was referring to: Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas...

You don't think so?



Tilt wrote:

appicchato wrote:There's only one Dhamma...everything else is a dhamma...

This is Diamond Sutra stuff.

My earlier query (page 3) to Retro will explain its context.

Tilt wrote:

K wrote:In Dhamma there are no dhammas...

Of course, it depends....

On what? Under what circumstances are there dhammas in Dhamma?

Tilt wrote:

k wrote:In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions... No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...

Only so as a conceptual structure. Reality of things seems to be a bit different.

How?

A wolf is just a wolf; it has no ego to protect or preserve; it has ‘no self’.

kidd wrote:A wolf is just a wolf; it has no ego to protect or preserve; it has ‘no self’.

Are you really sure about that? When tired, sleep; when hungry, kill.

kannada wrote:Though I respect the body of works that constitute Buddhism I also have a healthy scepticism regarding authenticity, undisputable authenticity cannot be guaranteed.

Yeah, well. No one is asking you to uncritically believe or accept anything, but the tradition rather strikes me as being a bit wiser than the position you are advocating.

I am a practitioner, not a believer.

Which is fine, but a practitioner of?

I do not see the teachings of Buddha-dharma as a series of levels.

Except both the Theravada and the Mahayana talk about conventional language and “ultimate” language, and understanding teachings in those terms.

I see them as a clearly defined methodology that produce certain results.

And part of that methodology is the skilful use of language and the understanding that there are different ways of talking about the same thing

Anatta is a fact of Buddhist life and adherents of Buddhism should understand it accordingly. Without this understanding practice is a waste of time.

While the importance of anatta cannot be denied, it can be unskillfully emphasized.

Refuge is taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. There is no mention for taking refuge in oneself.

I think you are getting way, way too stuck on the expression of “taking refuge in oneself.”

I assume the above quote to mean that the work of cessation cannot be performed on one's behalf by another. The work is performed by oneself, for oneself in order to remove the delusion of oneself.

I do not think any one means it in any other way, and it is obvious that those who are talking about it here are well aware of anatta as the underlying “reality.”

I don't accept your theory of 'levels' if the teachings be competently taught.

I shrug my shoulders. I have said nothing that is not consistent with the Buddha’s teachings.

In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions...

You can play at that, imagine that you are doing that, but you cannot meaningfully will yourself to drop the “I” and “other.” It only meaningfully happens with insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta, coming from the practices of morality and such things as dana and lovingkindness and concentrated mindfulness.

No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...

Maybe easy for those few whose paramis are such, but for other it is a struggle and the Buddha outlined a path that allows one to progress towards awakening.

Christopher::: I dont think of upekkha as a strategy. It is a mindset cultivated and maintained by the practice of Mindfulness, and it then arises in the face of all situations that arise, attractive or aversive. And sees them as equally free of self and permanence. It is apriori to any given situation. This course takes a lot of time in various forms of anapanasati, or walking meditation etc to be an option for us. Of course we can let things go as they arise also, but from a consistent mind set of upekkha.

Hi Valerie,

I responded to you over here...

Cultivating upekkha (equanimity) day-to-day

The ‘ego’ is an intellectualization of the experience of self-awareness; the ‘I’, the ‘self’ exists only in our minds; our notions of superiority and inferiority are figments of our imagination; we are, each and every one, simply, completely, and only, human beings; none of us is any more than this, none of us is any less. We spend our lives telling ourselves it is otherwise, wasting precious time and energy we could be spending seeing and enjoying the truth.

Tilt wrote:the tradition rather strikes me as being a bit wiser than the position you are advocating.

What position did I advocate?

a practitioner of?

Meditation.

Except both the Theravada and the Mahayana talk about conventional language and “ultimate” language, and understanding teachings in those terms.

I don't see anything 'ultimate' about the said teachings, they are reasonably practical and straightforward.

While the importance of anatta cannot be denied, it can be unskillfully emphasized.

I agree, I have seen abundant examples of commentators who simply have no understanding of it.

I think you are getting way, way too stuck on the expression of “taking refuge in oneself.”

What a coincidence – I thought the same about you.

I do not think any one means it in any other way, and it is obvious that those who are talking about it here are well aware of anatta as the underlying “reality.”

Anatta is commensurate with cessation and cessation is not a reality, cessation is the absence of all 'realities' - Was that an example of an unskilful exposition?

You can play at that, imagine that you are doing that, but you cannot meaningfully will yourself to drop the “I” and “other.” It only meaningfully happens with insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta, coming from the practices of morality and such things as dana and lovingkindness and concentrated mindfulness.

You assume too much. I did not say anything about willing anything and I don't 'play' at anything.

One thing you are missing, kannada, this is the "Discovering Theravada" section, which is pretty much self explanatory by its title - "Discovering Theravada". What has become plainly obvious is that idiosyncratic posts do not quite fit here, since what you are posting is not necessarily Theravada. They are better off in the free-for-all section, where you are quite welcome post. I'll address your objections there. Your stuff here is going way out of the "Discovering Theravada" parameters.