Without sufficient common ground for discussion there isn't much possibility of meaningful dialogue
Agree, lets stop this discussion on this note.
Metta
Parth
Without sufficient common ground for discussion there isn't much possibility of meaningful dialogue
Why define anything? Not so we can have a gilded definition to worship. So it can be found, that's why.parth wrote: So why do this.
What is your explanation for the Buddha telling us the Third Noble Truth?parth wrote:Trying to define can help find it ? this one really makes me laugh. No offences meant though
Metta
Parth
Hardly Geoff,Ñāṇa wrote:rowyourboat wrote:the unconditioned can't be definedIt's the reification of "The Unconditioned" which leads to these appeals of ineffability. But this has been discussed previously at length.parth wrote:the unconditioned can't be defined
All the best,
Geoff
An "unconditioned" what? And where is it and, if there where no ariya, would there still be an "unconditioned?"rowyourboat wrote:Your stance of defining nibbana in terms of simply saying it is the absence of lobha, dosa, moha and denying anything beyond, unwittingly assumes the non-existence of an unconditioned...and with that, the (non) experience of the unconditioned which this thread is about. But that kind of definition is, ofcourse, good enough in terms of personal practice. Better to say there is something unconditioned, which is not definable in terms of existing or not existing and leave it at that.
Not really. Just a different idea of what exactly "unconditioned" means. It may imply non-existence when viewed in your terms, but not on it's own terms, due to underlying fundamental differences about how this all works.rowyourboat wrote:unwittingly assumes the non-existence of an unconditioned
I don't have a "stance." I follow the dhamma expounded in the canon. SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):rowyourboat wrote:Your stance of defining nibbana in terms of simply saying it is the absence of lobha, dosa, moha and denying anything beyond,
The gnosis of the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion is known. It's called the gnosis of nibbāna (nibbāna ñāṇa), the gnosis of elimination (khayeñāṇa), the gnosis and vision of liberation (vimuttiñāṇadassana), and so on.rowyourboat wrote:the (non) experience of the unconditioned which this thread is about.
Not that you have shown.parth wrote:Dear Matheesha,
It is useless to try and explain, even though our friends themselves undermine their stand and prove why what should remain undefined. somebody says it is a figurative concept, somebody says defining it brings them closer to achieving it, somebody further questions; still not realising, all this is utterly useless/ futile.
Funny how the Buddha himself appeared to engage in these things that you consider so futile. You seem to want to ignore what the Buddhist canon actually says.still not realising, all this is utterly useless/ futile
Friends, What is explained in suttas are only certain aspects of nibanna (again this may be incorrect to state so) not the actual experience, which for all the debate above cannot be explained and put in words. To try and explain nibbana correctly in words is like putiing a striaght stick halfway in water and expecting it to remain staright visually, which it cannot, it bends (visually).Funny how the Buddha himself appeared to engage in these things that you consider so futile. You seem to want to ignore what the Buddhist canon actually says.
I'm fairly open about what can be useful practice, but the attitude being presented here turns a very nice dhamma into kind of a wet noodle. It turns the core of the dhamma into something akin to Sanjaya's eel-wriggling.
To try and explain the taste of chocolate correctly in words is like putiing a striaght stick halfway in water and expecting it to remain staright visually, which it cannot, it bends (visually).parth wrote:Kenshow Wrote :
Friends, What is explained in suttas are only certain aspects of nibanna (again this may be incorrect to state so) not the actual experience, which for all the debate above cannot be explained and put in words. To try and explain nibbana correctly in words is like putiing a striaght stick halfway in water and expecting it to remain staright visually, which it cannot, it bends (visually).Funny how the Buddha himself appeared to engage in these things that you consider so futile. You seem to want to ignore what the Buddhist canon actually says.
I'm fairly open about what can be useful practice, but the attitude being presented here turns a very nice dhamma into kind of a wet noodle. It turns the core of the dhamma into something akin to Sanjaya's eel-wriggling.
Metta
Parth
No, you're continuing to avoid straightforwardly acknowledging the plain meaning of the sutta quotations you've been shown.parth wrote:Friends, What is explained in suttas are only certain aspects of nibanna (again this may be incorrect to state so) not the actual experience, which for all the debate above cannot be explained and put in words.