The links of dependent origination appear as blinks of light? Do you mean literally blinks of light, or do you mean that they resemble blinks of light in certain respects?dhammarelax wrote:I say that what follows the fruition cannot be mistaken comparing it with the path attainment that is seeing the links of dependent origination, this links present themselves as blinks of light that can be easily mistaken for something else or for something without importance.
Bhante Vimalaramsi
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6493
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
The question of the Buddha making mistakes has been moved here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22342
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
In this case (after cessation) which is lets call it their purest form they are seen as blinks of light which I think means that literally appear as such but it doesn't mean that they are only blinks of light, they are still the links and when one of them is released you can see a strong effect, they happen fast and they happen once or more times, they are small blinks not big flashings. I had some instances in daily life that while observing the partial (not the full series) arising of dependent origination I perceived them as blinks of light without the experience of cessation coming before, in this case however the latest links eg clinging do not appear as light but for clinging as thought.Dhammanando wrote:The links of dependent origination appear as blinks of light? Do you mean literally blinks of light, or do you mean that they resemble blinks of light in certain respects?dhammarelax wrote:I say that what follows the fruition cannot be mistaken comparing it with the path attainment that is seeing the links of dependent origination, this links present themselves as blinks of light that can be easily mistaken for something else or for something without importance.
This is not the way they appear when observed in reverse order (without cessation) which is by far the practice that takes most of the practice time (four noble truths), in reverse order they appear as described eg feeling is painful pleasant or neutral.
with metta
dhammarelax
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:51 am
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Different Meditation practices work for different people at different times, that's why the Buddha taught so many different methods. The criticism arises from attachment to views, as the Buddha taught, this is the strongest attachment. The Buddha even gave contradictory teachings because the teaching is designed to break attachments specific to those audiences being taught, but the core of his teachings are always the same. When I succeed in meditation, there is nothing to say, and nowhere to go. Right view is no view. All is relative, arising and passing away dependent on causes and conditions, attachment is identification with these momentary holograms. Let go of views, watch the dhammas do what they do. Right view is an attitude of calm detachment. This is the first of the noble path for a reason. So I don't understand how so much debate exists in the sanga. Right now as you read this comment, what views arise? These views arise resulting from attachment to contrary views you like. If you HOLD any views, you will suffer. Views are relative, impermanent, and impersonal like all other conditioned things. Views arise and pass away like the sound of a bell or the sounds in your space right now, but you don't try to HOLD those sounds. This is meditation in all postures, mental and physical. In short, practice the path, forget the views, they are all wrong. Peace
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Technically right view is not a no view.
Right view is a view but it is called right because it benefits to the goal.
Right view is a view but it is called right because it benefits to the goal.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6236
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Why do you dig this, necromancer? Did you want to learn reviving the dead?
Please stop following me
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
What are you talking about?whynotme wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 3:22 amWhy do you dig this, necromancer? Did you want to learn reviving the dead?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6236
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
neither I understand nor others
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Ven. Vimalaramsi's announcement of "Suttavada" and deemed it as "American Tradition".
So, my question...is this really allowable in term of Vinaya, for a monk to declare as such? Does it not fall under "Sanghabheda"?
What if another monk declares "Dhamma-Vinayavada", or "Ekayanavada" or "Dhammavada" or even "Buddhayana"...... Is this okay with Vinaya rules?
So, my question...is this really allowable in term of Vinaya, for a monk to declare as such? Does it not fall under "Sanghabheda"?
What if another monk declares "Dhamma-Vinayavada", or "Ekayanavada" or "Dhammavada" or even "Buddhayana"...... Is this okay with Vinaya rules?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
If I'm not mistaken, a different interpretation of the teachings is not considered schismatic. It only becomes a schism when a monk calls for a new ordination lineage, completely separate from the Theravada line and not recognizing the lineage he came from as being valid monks.
What's sort of strange (although not impossible) is that Vimalaramsi ordained in Myanmar in that tradition, which is very Classical Theravada, honors and reveres Abhidhamma, Commentaries, yet he rejects Abhidhamma and Commentaries. Although, students don't always remain in full agreement with their teachers or preceptors.
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
This is just a modern version of what happened with the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika. The Sautrāntika never formally split away. Sujato has given interesting arguments in "Sects and Sectarianism" that there have never been any actual formal schisms in the sangha, partly because monks and nuns knew of the unwholesome kamma that would cause. There are doctrinal and Vinaya differences, yes, but no one formally split from another, according to him.Ontheway wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 2:50 pm Ven. Vimalaramsi's announcement of "Suttavada" and deemed it as "American Tradition".
So, my question...is this really allowable in term of Vinaya, for a monk to declare as such? Does it not fall under "Sanghabheda"?
What if another monk declares "Dhamma-Vinayavada", or "Ekayanavada" or "Dhammavada" or even "Buddhayana"...... Is this okay with Vinaya rules?
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... Sujato.pdf
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
I've watched a few of his dhamma talks and the like. From what I can tell he spent years working within the framework of the Visuddhimagga and Vipassanā type meditation and felt he was getting nowhere fast, so he went back to the suttas and saw a discrepancy in his view between what was in them and what he was being taught. Once he did that he felt his practice really took off, and he says he sees the same in others who have switched from Abhidhamma to Suttavāda.DNS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:06 pmIf I'm not mistaken, a different interpretation of the teachings is not considered schismatic. It only becomes a schism when a monk calls for a new ordination lineage, completely separate from the Theravada line and not recognizing the lineage he came from as being valid monks.
What's sort of strange (although not impossible) is that Vimalaramsi ordained in Myanmar in that tradition, which is very Classical Theravada, honors and reveres Abhidhamma, Commentaries, yet he rejects Abhidhamma and Commentaries. Although, students don't always remain in full agreement with their teachers or preceptors.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Thank you for the info, DNS.DNS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:06 pmIf I'm not mistaken, a different interpretation of the teachings is not considered schismatic. It only becomes a schism when a monk calls for a new ordination lineage, completely separate from the Theravada line and not recognizing the lineage he came from as being valid monks.
What's sort of strange (although not impossible) is that Vimalaramsi ordained in Myanmar in that tradition, which is very Classical Theravada, honors and reveres Abhidhamma, Commentaries, yet he rejects Abhidhamma and Commentaries. Although, students don't always remain in full agreement with their teachers or preceptors.
But I watched the video, he literally said "I'm not a Theravada monk." (00:57)
Coming from a Theravada lineage, then in the video he said he is not a Theravada monk. Aren't that just fit to the point underlined above?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
-
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Theravada is not THE sangha. It's a deviation from Theravada... not the sangha as a whole.Ontheway wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:46 amThank you for the info, DNS.DNS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:06 pmIf I'm not mistaken, a different interpretation of the teachings is not considered schismatic. It only becomes a schism when a monk calls for a new ordination lineage, completely separate from the Theravada line and not recognizing the lineage he came from as being valid monks.
What's sort of strange (although not impossible) is that Vimalaramsi ordained in Myanmar in that tradition, which is very Classical Theravada, honors and reveres Abhidhamma, Commentaries, yet he rejects Abhidhamma and Commentaries. Although, students don't always remain in full agreement with their teachers or preceptors.
But I watched the video, he literally said "I'm not a Theravada monk." (00:57)
Coming from a Theravada lineage, then in the video he said he is not a Theravada monk. Aren't that just fit to the point underlined above?
If it was a split as you seem to claim, then Theravada itself would fall into the same category of 'split'.