TMingyur wrote:
Only if one erroneously assumes that "the relativity of concepts" can be logically grasped which actually is impossible because whereas "relativity as such" can be logically grasped "the relativity of a meaning qua meaning" is not accessible to logical thought which is necessarily of binary nature.
Without judging this as true or untrue it is in any case using concepts inaccesible to Theravada since they were developed later.
tilt wrote:
You appear to be widely read in Theravadin and other Buddhist stuff, but I wonder what your actual quesation is here?
Im wondering that about yours, too now, since my question is in the OP and clear enough. But if you want me to elaborate a bit more then I could split it into a purely buddhological / philosophical and a personal thing. The first would be that since it seems that Buddhisms core-doctrines were really questioned only to much over a thousand years after the Buddha and - afaik - the doctrine of Nirvana was weirdly ignored completely. As stated before you can find proof for rebirth f.e. but not for Nirvana. So I was wondering if Theravada was ever confronted with critical inquiry and could answer at all from the their viewpoint.
The second thing is purely personal since I would of course just like everyone else here be free from suffering. But so far Buddhist practice looks pretty much like a bunch of people who can neither explain what theyre aiming at exactly, nor technically define why it should work, how it should work nor give a functioning step-by-step guide how to reach it, altho they sure like to talk much about everything peripheral to it
.
So as long as the core of all this is just imagination and belief - its all just wishful thinking. So the first step to check if this perception is correct is to question the mechanics of nibbana. And this starts with asking why the attainments are unshakeable naturally.
imaginos wrote:
If it doesn't ring a bell to you, then forget about Theravada and move on to some other 'religions'.
Dhamma only rings a bell if a listener is ready (faculty wise).
So your reaction to my critical questions is an inapplicable example where you presuppose exactly what I'm questioning and then youre in addition indirectly insulting me? Youre doing a great job providing practical proof that not even gradual training has any visible positive effects here.
accinteyo wrote:
Hi Akuma,
with respect to my given example it is not based on remembrance of past experiences at all. This is in fact the important point to understand. It is about knowing in the here and now, by directly seeing things as they are here and now. Not by remembering any experience in the past. That's why it is irreversible. The ability to remember past experiences could get lost but when a point has reached once, where one penetrated delusion to some degree, the knowledge by directly seeing things clearer here and now is irreversible. No need to remember this particular experience of the past again, because it is always known directly here and now by seeing it clearly here and now.
Good. What is different then in the setup of the mindstream of the arya as compared the the putthujana? The Sarvastivadins f.e. hold that the arya-santana actually appropriates certain dharmas that make him an arya. Do you know how Theravada explains if it does?
