It all boils down to likes and dislikes.alan wrote:Why is that appropriate?
How can Dogen ever be relevant in a Therevada discussion?
Kind regards
It all boils down to likes and dislikes.alan wrote:Why is that appropriate?
How can Dogen ever be relevant in a Therevada discussion?
I agree with ya here, but I was reluctant to get into that kind of thing as to not make the conversation more complicated... unless that was somehow related to beeblebrox's point, in which case, silly me.thereductor wrote: However, the contemplation of anatta directly seems to be taking the stick from the wrong end. Doing such it might seem unclear just WHY something is not self.
That an absence be directly contemplated, such is impossible. What is however possible is "to get lost" in one's own fantasy/idea.thereductor wrote: However, the contemplation of anatta directly seems to be taking the stick from the wrong end.
I got the feeling beeblebrox was pointing out the difference between 'letting go' of self verses asserting "no self". One is natural and follows almost unintentionally from practice, the other is obsessive and unresolvable even with practice.Kenshou wrote:I agree with ya here, but I was reluctant to get into that kind of thing as to not make the conversation more complicated... unless that was somehow related to beeblebrox's point, in which case, silly me.thereductor wrote: However, the contemplation of anatta directly seems to be taking the stick from the wrong end. Doing such it might seem unclear just WHY something is not self.
Or perception of non-self (anattasaññā) if you rather, as already stated here.thereductor wrote:However, the contemplation of anatta directly seems to be taking the stick from the wrong end.
thereductor wrote:Doing such it might seem unclear just WHY something is not self.
If that was his point then who would disagree? Although to say "asserting a 'no-self'" is a specious accusation where it was brought up only in context of showing why buddha-nature has no place being back-read into Theravāda.thereductor wrote:I got the feeling beeblebrox was pointing out the difference between 'letting go' of self verses asserting "no self".
And a good example of this is here:thereductor wrote:"One is natural and follows almost unintentionally from practice,..."
An unprompted release.“Bhikkhus, one of composure need not make the intention ‘may I know and see as it actually exists’; bhikkhus, it naturally follows that one of composure knows and sees as it actually exists.”
“Samāhitassa, bhikkhave, na cetanāya karaṇīyaṃ ‘yathābhūtaṃ jānāmi passāmī'ti. dhammatā esā, bhikkhave, yaṃ samāhito yathābhūtaṃ jānāti passati.
...
“Bhikkhus, one who is dispassionate need not make the intention ‘may I make known the knowledge and vision of release’; bhikkhus, it naturally follows that one who is dispassionate will make known the knowledge and vision of release.
“Virattassa, bhikkhave, na cetanāya karaṇīyaṃ ‘vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ sacchikaromī'ti. dhammatā esā, bhikkhave, yaṃ viratto vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ sacchikaroti.
– Na Cetanākaraṇīya Sutta AN.11.1.2[SLTP]
The implication of not wanting anything is that it's pretty good.beeblebrox wrote:The nibbana is the end of greed, hatred and delusion. That's all. The significance of this is much more than what some people on here seem to realize... it encompasses all of the suffering, while you're remaining awake.