That's not what Buddha said.m0rl0ck wrote:This is one of my favorite comments related to the thread title. Teachers in other traditions have said similar things, but this is my current favorite phrasing.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"When you start practicing meditation, you can begin with any method at all, because they all lead to the same results. The reason there are so many methods is because people have different tendencies. This is why there have to be different images to focus on or words to repeat — such as "buddho" or "arahang" — as means of giving the mind a point around which to gather and settle down as the first step. When the mind has gathered and is still, the meditation word will fall away on its own, and that's where every method falls into the same track, with the same flavor. In other words, it has discernment as its surpassing state, and release as its essence."
The gist of what i have read from the above and other sources seems to be that the less knowledge and experience one has of actual practice of the Way, the more the differences in approach tend to excite one.
Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
(i) No one knows what the Buddha said. All we have are different collections of records that are claimed to represent what the Buddha said.suttametta wrote:That's not what Buddha said.
(ii) In your attempts to lump nibbāna together with an eternal consciousness you haven't shown much knowledge of what the Buddha is claimed to have said in the Nikāyas.
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
You are not objective, unless of course you are claiming to be an awakened person.suttametta wrote:It's purely an objective matter.
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Yes, heavily edited records.Ñāṇa wrote: (i) No one knows what the Buddha said. All we have are different collections of records that are claimed to represent what the Buddha said.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Nowhere does it say all methods lead to the same result. Buddha seems to be pretty sure there are many methods that lead only to more samsara.Ñāṇa wrote:(i) No one knows what the Buddha said. All we have are different collections of records that are claimed to represent what the Buddha said.suttametta wrote:That's not what Buddha said.
You ad hom is duly noted. It's a common tactic for you. You are ignoring three suttas that describe nibbana as an eternal consciousness. So what of that?(ii) In your attempts to lump nibbāna together with an eternal consciousness you haven't shown much knowledge of what the Buddha is claimed to have said in the Nikāyas.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Don't be silly, I don't have to be an awakened person to be objective.mfesmith wrote:You are not objective, unless of course you are claiming to be an awakened person.suttametta wrote:It's purely an objective matter.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Greetings,
(In what risks becoming something of a train wreck...)
May everyone, regardless of your perspectives, please endeavour to express them in a manner which is clear, calm and mutually respectful.
If we can do that, something useful take-outs from the discussion might actually be possible...
Metta,
Retro.
(In what risks becoming something of a train wreck...)
May everyone, regardless of your perspectives, please endeavour to express them in a manner which is clear, calm and mutually respectful.
If we can do that, something useful take-outs from the discussion might actually be possible...
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
I find it quite interesting. The threadstarter came here to blame everyone because he finds they blame some other people. First one person steaming, then another, and out of a sudden none of them can see through the thick fog of steaming anger anymore.
I feel grateful that you care to act like a lighthouse to people here Bhante.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The answer is in the thread title. Why would anyone say "Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes" and not just "Sectarian Attitudes" unless they had a sectarian attitude?
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
It might be worth keeping in mind that your perceptions are your perceptions and no one else's. For example, I don't think that your characterization of this thread is accurate.Alobha wrote:I find it quite interesting. The threadstarter came here to blame everyone because he finds they blame some other people. First one person steaming, then another, and out of a sudden none of them can see through the thick fog of steaming anger anymore.
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Of course everyone needs to 'examine themselves' and that includes the op also. I just hope that's what we are doing, rather than once again getting involved in bickering, while as every second ticks away, we come closer to death. But of course that's just an abstraction, the idea that we could die at any moment...we will be alright, plenty of time to argue...we can meditate later.The idea that the Dharma that the Buddha taught lay entombed solely in some exclusive collection of books is pure foolishness. People who have that idea need to examine themselves for they have been taught incorrectly.
M
(sorry for the sarcasm above but my intentions are good here)
metta.
Last edited by manas on Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
This is a non-starter. No one here has asserted that all methods lead to the same result.suttametta wrote:Nowhere does it say all methods lead to the same result. Buddha seems to be pretty sure there are many methods that lead only to more samsara.Ñāṇa wrote:(i) No one knows what the Buddha said. All we have are different collections of records that are claimed to represent what the Buddha said.suttametta wrote:That's not what Buddha said.
I think your interpretation is misinformed. Not unlike your assertion a few weeks ago where you opined that the Theravāda is a broken system and Pāli translators don't understand Pāli. Around the same time you were trying to redefine the entire Yogācāra commentarial tradition. More recently you were trying to lump the Mahāyāna together with Vedic views, and simultaneously assert that guru yoga can't be accounted for without recourse to pantheism. And then there's the numerous times that you've gone off on erroneous tangents about dzogchen....suttametta wrote:You are ignoring three suttas that describe nibbana as an eternal consciousness. So what of that?
Calling into question you understanding of the Nikāyas isn't an ad hom.suttametta wrote:You ad hom is duly noted.(ii) In your attempts to lump nibbāna together with an eternal consciousness you haven't shown much knowledge of what the Buddha is claimed to have said in the Nikāyas.
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
I suspect we would save ourselves a lot of trouble if we replaced assertions by questions or phrased them as provisional explorations rather than statements of fact, when they are not. Goes back to the belief in ones objectivity and in having arrived at the Truth, I suppose.
It would also be a lot more fun in engage in such explorations rather than slanging matches.
It would also be a lot more fun in engage in such explorations rather than slanging matches.
_/|\_
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
Well said, Bhante.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The answer is in the thread title. Why would anyone say "Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes" and not just "Sectarian Attitudes" unless they had a sectarian attitude?
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
If one takes the aggregates as "mine" or identifies the aggregates as "I" then one may become a religious follower of any system of written words. Then, if one has not overcome ill-will one may have negative attitudes against what is not considered to be "I" or "mine".
Kind regards
Kind regards
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Theravāda Sectarian Attitudes
There was a previous post you seemed to have been adopting which quoted some bhikkhu saying a method like "buddho" and all methods lead to the same result. I don't have time to hunt that down now.Ñāṇa wrote:This is a non-starter. No one here has asserted that all methods lead to the same result.
I'm very well informed. You just don't agree. I don't expect you to. This is an ad hom, by the way. You are impugning my personal credibility. You should understand that. Discuss the issues and you won't be ad homing.Ñāṇa wrote:I think your interpretation is misinformed. Not unlike your assertion a few weeks ago where you opined that the Theravāda is a broken system and Pāli translators don't understand Pāli. Around the same time you were trying to redefine the entire Yogācāra commentarial tradition. More recently you were trying to lump the Mahāyāna together with Vedic views, and simultaneously assert that guru yoga can't be accounted for without recourse to pantheism. And then there's the numerous times that you've gone off on erroneous tangents about dzogchen....suttametta wrote:You are ignoring three suttas that describe nibbana as an eternal consciousness. So what of that?
Again, we can go into these issues if you like. I can assure you that I can hold my own based on a topical discussion. There is plenty of criticism to go around. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
I am not the one who said Pali translators don't understand Pali, that comes from a teacher whom I respect, Ven. Madawala Punnaji. He stated many times that Theravada teachings are corrupted. He also says Theravada has lost the original teachings, and Pali translators tend to build on those misunderstandings with mistranslations.
You can challenge him. Perhaps he's misinterpreting. I tend to agree with his conclusions. Most of my comments about Theravada comes from my understanding of his lectures.
As to Yogacara, I merely meant to point out that there is another way to interpret the Alayavijnana and 8 consciousnesses based on the teachings of the Driking Kagyu practice lineage instructions, where the "seed" is an amalgam of 5th-7th consciousnesses, leaving the 8th to be primordially pure such that there is no revolution of the basis, which would bring the thinking together with Dzogchen's explanations about the gzhi.
Clearly, Mahayana, simply by incorporating mantras, and the notions of dharma as primordial sound, as in the Prajnaparamita of a Single Sound, has incorporated Vedic notions about AUM, which is the primordial sound of ultimate truth in Vedism. It doesn't take some heavy scholarship to understand that. Anyone who seriously practices Vedantic Yoga/Tantra and Mahayana will instantly recognize the commonalities. Whereas, the Pali teachings about sati are uniquely different as to methodology, although not as different as one might think as to result, given the Buddha's statements about nibbana being an eternal radiant consciousness.
Again, Guru Yoga and it's recourse to Pantheism doesn't come from me. It came as a response to a question I had for Garchen Rinpoche. He's the one who told me that Guru Yoga works because the dharmakaya is all-pervasive and teacher and student have no separation. My remark to him was that he was chiming Vedic. He responded that Buddha only meant to distance his teachings from a Creator God, not from the impersonal notion of Brahman.
Finally, my comments about Dzogchen are in line with this issue of commonality with the Vedic systems, namely, the Dzogchen Tantras' claim of emanating directing from primordial sound, a la, the Vedas.
All of this gets me down to my main point that what we have generally is a large batch of distinctions without a significant difference. Whatever distinctions there are can always get reworked in the model so that they reflect a commonality. There's nothing inherently true about the various commentators' writings. We are equally endowed with the right to rework these issues, just as they did. My grind with folks like you and Malcolm is due to your undue clenching onto your scholarship. In my opinion, latching onto these old writers prevents new good work from bring excellent dharma to light. You scholar types have an undue amount of influence on many people because you can write neat diacritics. But you are missing something very big, which is the fluid nature of all this.
For example, I put Punnaji's teachings into practice and I instantly recognized what he's describing is a very fast method that can take you all the way. I found no significant difference in that result from those of the other very high methods I know from practicing Tibetan Buddhism. I think that is a very significant finding. What he has discovered through his research is amazing.
Yes, it is. You are impugning my knowledge. You would do better to raise a topical issue, then we would have nothing to discuss. I can only defend the comment, "you don't have enough knowledge," by responding with comments about myself, what I learned, what I know, etc. Rather, we can demonstrate such matters by discussing dharma topics openly.Ñāṇa wrote:Calling into question you understanding of the Nikāyas isn't an ad hom.
Last edited by suttametta on Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.