And, if you meditate, you will exemplify the case of meditation that isn't related to rebirth and which yet has benefit. This goes directly to the OP's third point, iirc.LonesomeYogurt wrote:It essentially never crosses my mind.
REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
I have edited the OP and removed any mention of rebirth retroactively making all rebirth posts in this thread, including my own, . It was my mistake and this is my way of fixing it. If you don't like it, take it up with Ben.
Mike. I do not consider what I'm about to say "meta-discussion," but if you still want to challenge that, then I also request that Ben (or perhaps Retro) mediate our dispute, and that you do it via PMs. There's too much clutter in this thread all ready.
I ask that the moderators either remove or delete all the rebirth discussions in this thread. I prefer the former, as they are worthy of discussion in the appropriate context. This thread is not the appropriate context.
If for some strange reason in the future I decide I don't want to call myself a Buddhist anymore, I will cite the rebirth debacle of this thread as a principal reason. If this kind of bickering, soap-boxing, and myopic dogmatism are what being a Buddhist today devolves to, then I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed of my own participation in and perpetuation of the rebirth elements of this thread. I have tried to think critically, honestly, and with integrity about the issue but have been stonewalled or otherwise obstructed by rabble-rousing, demagoguery, and dogmatic side-taking and drawing-of-lines-in-the-sand only to find my legitimate points (e.g., my question about how one would know if rebirth knowledge isn't just in inner, subjective vision produced by my own imagnination albeit primed by external cues) be almost entirely ignored. This turns me off immensely. Again, I am ashamed of my contributions--the bulk of which I have deleted---to such senseless and counterproductive discourse. To the extent that you contributed to the same, you, in my humble opinion, ought to be ashamed of yourselves too.
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
danieLion wrote:mikenz66 wrote:Like LY, I don't "worry about rebirth", but I do worry that this secular process also appears to me (from observation) to lead to a devaluation of the entire Path. The whole idea that a total end to suffering is possible. I think that this is a key message in the post by Bhikkhu Pesala http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 91#p233677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that was quoted in the OP.LonesomeYogurt wrote: But let's also be clear here: The vast majority of secularists or materialists who are interested in Buddhism are doing more than "not worrying about rebirth." They're actively attempting to get rid of it. They're actively attempting to take the Buddha's Dhamma and fit it into the mold of their materialist, secularist culture, casting off anything that might challenge such a worldview. ...
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, I disagree with this OP assumption:See:It also implies that some degree of BLIND FAITH is required to progress on The Path, something even the Buddha never demanded.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p234002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To repeat the important point:As Sariputta says in that sutta (and the Buddha agrees) any of us who have not attained the deathless will have to take the Dhamma on conviction/faith.Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others
that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless,
has the Deathless as its goal & consummation;
Mike
tiltbillings wrote:Please do not turn this thread into another "the great rebirth debate" Please pay attention to the OP.
It appears you didn't understand my point, which was about Nibbana and Faith, and is therfore very much to the point.
Mike
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
...delete...
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
It is hardly soap-boxing or bickering to criticize movements in one's religious group that one finds detrimental. Despite your obvious admiration of epistemological anarchism, Discordianism, etc. Buddhism is still a system and it still has elements that cannot be taken away without great damage coming to the Dhamma. If you consider antipathy towards those who wish to remove basic doctrinal tenants from Buddhism to be "myopic dogmatism," I would respectfully encourage you to examine whether or not such grumpiness is really warranted.danieLion wrote:If for some strange reason in the future I decide I don't want to call myself a Buddhist anymore, I will cite the rebirth debacle of this thread as a principal reason. If this kind of bickering, soap-boxing, and myopic dogmatism are what being a Buddhist today devolves to, then I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed of my own participation in and perpetuation of the rebirth elements of this thread.
Also, please refrain from quoting responses to your statements and simply posting a soap-box emoticon. It hardly helps further the discussion.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
Daniel
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p234554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the edited part, an argument for a gradation in the scheme of how nibbāna can be "known" by the non-ariyan, the trainee and the one beyond training. Hopefully, rebirth did not intrude into the argument...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p234554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the edited part, an argument for a gradation in the scheme of how nibbāna can be "known" by the non-ariyan, the trainee and the one beyond training. Hopefully, rebirth did not intrude into the argument...
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
It's not grumpiness. It's assertiveness.LonesomeYogurt wrote:It is hardly soap-boxing or bickering to criticize movements in one's religious group that one finds detrimental. Despite your obvious admiration of epistemological anarchism, Discordianism, etc. Buddhism is still a system and it still has elements that cannot be taken away without great damage coming to the Dhamma. If you consider antipathy towards those who wish to remove basic doctrinal tenants from Buddhism to be "myopic dogmatism," I would respectfully encourage you to examine whether or not such grumpiness is really warranted.danieLion wrote:If for some strange reason in the future I decide I don't want to call myself a Buddhist anymore, I will cite the rebirth debacle of this thread as a principal reason. If this kind of bickering, soap-boxing, and myopic dogmatism are what being a Buddhist today devolves to, then I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed of my own participation in and perpetuation of the rebirth elements of this thread.
LonesomeYogurt wrote:Also, please refrain from quoting responses to your statements and simply posting a soap-box emoticon. It hardly helps further the discussion.
You asking me to refrain from doing things in a thread I started is entirely inappropriate.
tiltbillings wrote:Please do not turn this thread into another "the great rebirth debate" Please pay attention to the OP.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
I'm grateful you pointed this out, but I am watching that thread too and while rebirth is not appropriate to the revised OP here it is to the OP there. So if I respond it will be there (I'm waiting Pesala's reply first befor I do though.).Sylvester wrote:Daniel
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p234554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the edited part, an argument for a gradation in the scheme of how nibbāna can be "known" by the non-ariyan, the trainee and the one beyond training. Hopefully, rebirth did not intrude into the argument...
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
danieLion wrote:I'm grateful you pointed this out, but I am watching that thread too and while rebirth is not appropriate to the revised OP here it is to the OP there. So if I respond it will be there (I'm waiting Pesala's reply first befor I do though.).Sylvester wrote:Daniel
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p234554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the edited part, an argument for a gradation in the scheme of how nibbāna can be "known" by the non-ariyan, the trainee and the one beyond training. Hopefully, rebirth did not intrude into the argument...
Well, if you find the 3-lives model of Dependant Origination too much for the discussion of stream-entry, or knowledge of nibbāna, or motivation to be a Buddhist, you could delve into the Abhidhammic model of DO on a per-citta basis, starting at section 248 onwards of the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgo.
(Sorry for the feeble attempt at humour...)
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
I wouldn't call it feeble; just over my head. Maybe clarify what your getting at so I can get the joke?Sylvester wrote:danieLion wrote:I'm grateful you pointed this out, but I am watching that thread too and while rebirth is not appropriate to the revised OP here it is to the OP there. So if I respond it will be there (I'm waiting Pesala's reply first befor I do though.).Sylvester wrote:Daniel
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p234554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the edited part, an argument for a gradation in the scheme of how nibbāna can be "known" by the non-ariyan, the trainee and the one beyond training. Hopefully, rebirth did not intrude into the argument...
Well, if you find the 3-lives model of Dependant Origination too much for the discussion of stream-entry, or knowledge of nibbāna, or motivation to be a Buddhist, you could delve into the Abhidhammic model of DO on a per-citta basis, starting at section 248 onwards of the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgo.
(Sorry for the feeble attempt at humour...)
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
As Thanissaro puts it, "When you define yourself, you limit yourself." Likewise, when others try to define you, they limit you too. My attitudes about epistemic matters are not necessarily or thoroughly "anarchistic" and while I find Discordianism entertaining, I do not always admire it. It comes with problems of its own (As Robert Anton Wilson pointed out when wrote of Kerry Thornley's--one of Discordianism's co-founders--increasing paranoia over the years). My "antipathy" is not against "those who wish to remove basic doctrinal tenants from Buddhism" for, as I've said, I find them ("secular Buddhists", "rebirth agnostics", etc...) to be generally pathetic. Implying I'm sympathetic to them definitionally limits me. My sympathy is with seeking truth (if truth there is to find), with honesty and integrity, which are not contrary to the "buddhadhamma," but in fact in line with it's spirit and purposes.LonesomeYogurt wrote:It is hardly soap-boxing or bickering to criticize movements in one's religious group that one finds detrimental. Despite your obvious admiration of epistemological anarchism, Discordianism, etc. Buddhism is still a system and it still has elements that cannot be taken away without great damage coming to the Dhamma. If you consider antipathy towards those who wish to remove basic doctrinal tenants from Buddhism to be "myopic dogmatism," I would respectfully encourage you to examine whether or not such grumpiness is really warranted....danieLion wrote:If for some strange reason in the future I decide I don't want to call myself a Buddhist anymore, I will cite the rebirth debacle of this thread as a principal reason. If this kind of bickering, soap-boxing, and myopic dogmatism are what being a Buddhist today devolves to, then I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed of my own participation in and perpetuation of the rebirth elements of this thread.
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
I don't doubt that for a second - and the lack of honesty and integrity one finds in the rebirth-denying communities is, I'm sure, a turn-off for both of us. I hope you don't think I'm lumping you in with them. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between a philosophy that can be challenged before accepting (like the Buddhadhamma) and a system that is amenable to piecemeal adoption. The Dhamma is ehipassiko, come and see - but it isn't pick and choose.danieLion wrote:My sympathy is with seeking truth (if truth there is to find), with honesty and integrity, which are not contrary to the "buddhadhamma," but in fact in line with it's spirit and purposes.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
From the Cula-viyuha Sutta Sn 4.12
"Dwelling on their own views, quarreling, different skilled people say: 'Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma. Whoever rejects this, is imperfect.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Dwelling on their own views, quarreling, different skilled people say: 'Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma. Whoever rejects this, is imperfect.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Last edited by Mr Man on Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
Thanks. I didn't know if you were lumping me in with them, so thanks for clarifying. One of the things that annoys me about Stephen Batchelor is that he actually advocates cherry-picking based on the premise that we all do it (I heard him say it in a talk but can't remember which one). Cherry-picking is incompatible with seeking truth (if truth there is to find), honesty and integrity.LonesomeYogurt wrote:I don't doubt that for a second - and the lack of honesty and integrity one finds in the rebirth-denying communities is, I'm sure, a turn-off for both of us. I hope you don't think I'm lumping you in with them. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between a philosophy that can be challenged before accepting (like the Buddhadhamma) and a system that is amenable to piecemeal adoption. The Dhamma is ehipassiko, come and see - but it isn't pick and choose.danieLion wrote:My sympathy is with seeking truth (if truth there is to find), with honesty and integrity, which are not contrary to the "buddhadhamma," but in fact in line with it's spirit and purposes.
Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
Thanks Mr Man. The Sutta Nipata (I've studied most of this with Bhikkhu Bodhi's lectures online) is my favorite part of the Canon and the Atthaka Vagga (Anrea Fella did a series of lectures on it which I recommend) my favorite part of the Sutta Nipata. This whole Sutta is worth constant study and reflection, as is the preceding one.Mr Man wrote:From the Cula-viyuha Sutta Sn 4.12
"Dwelling on their own views, quarreling, different skilled people say: 'Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma. Whoever rejects this, is imperfect.'
I really like Thanissaro's footnotes on this passage from Sn 4.12, especially as they pertain to this thread:
It's also relevent to The Ball of Honey Sutta (Madhupindika Sutta) and this post by me and the subsequent discussion."The truth is one,[1] there is no second about which a person who knows it would argue with one who knows. Contemplatives promote their various personal truths, that's why they don't say one thing & the same. "Apart from their perception there are no many various constant truths in the world.[2] Preconceiving conjecture with regard to views, they speak of a pair: true & false."
[1] "The truth is one": This statement should be kept in mind throughout the following verses, as it forms the background to the discussion of how people who preconceive their conjectures speak of the pair, true and false. The Buddha is not denying that there is such a thing as true and false. Rather, he is saying that all entrenched views, regardless of how true or false their content might be, when considered as events in a causal chain behave in line with the truth of conditioned phenomena as explained in the preceding discourse. If held to, they lead to conceit, conflict, and states of becoming. When they are viewed in this way — as events rather than as true or false depictions of other events (or as events rather than signs) — the tendency to hold to or become entrenched in them is diminished.
[2] On the role of perception in leading to conflicting views, see the preceding discourse.
My master's degree is Conflict Resolution, so any suttas that address conflict are of special importance to me.