The negative language of Theravada.

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Element » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:21 pm

Individual wrote:If you aren't looking for abiding happiness (or an even more deep, more profound sense of equanimous inner peace and clarity), why are you practicing Buddhism? Numbness to suffering? Numbness and death?

Individual

If one is free from suffering, how can one be numb to suffering or numb to death? When a mind is free from suffering, there is no suffering to be numb to. Further, there is no death. There is merely selfless change or impermanence.

Individual wrote:]Peter... An inference based on the Pali canon.

The Dhamma is eternal (SN 47.13), precisely the reason it's a secure refuge:

"But, Ananda, when he attained total Unbinding, did Sariputta take the aggregate of virtue along with him? Did he take the aggregate of concentration... discernment... release... the aggregate of knowledge & vision of release along with him?"

"No, lord, when he attained total Unbinding, Ven. Sariputta didn't take the aggregate of virtue... concentration... discernment... release... the aggregate of knowledge & vision of release along with him.


Individual,

The passage you are referring to does not say Dhamma is eternal. Dhamma as truth or true nature of reality is eternal but human realisation of Dhamma is not eternal. I would suggest you consider the following part of the sutta:
It was as if my body were drugged, I lost my bearings, things weren't clear to me, on hearing that Ven. Sariputta had attained total Unbinding."

It's just that he was my instructor & counselor, one who exhorted, urged, roused, & encouraged me. He was tireless in teaching the Dhamma, a help to his companions in the holy life. We miss the nourishment of his Dhamma, the wealth of his Dhamma, his help in the Dhamma."


Individual wrote:The Buddha's body is the Dhamma (SN 22.87):
Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma.

Now, if the Dhamma is eternal... And the Buddha is the Dhamma... Then this logically means... hmmm? Could anyone here finish the inference for me? :)

The above quote does not say the Dhamma is the Buddha's body. You are sounding like a Mahayanan muni, declaring the guru is the Dhamma.

I have been advised of a post you made on another site, about those who tirelessly taught you the Dhamma from the Buddha's lips, for your welfare and benefit. I recommend if you chant the following verse about those who tirelessly taught you the Dhamma from the Buddha's lips, you may regain your senses again, just like Ananda regained his senses. Remember what the Buddha said about relating to him as a friend and not as an enemy, that he will not treat you like soft clay.
Kāyena vācāya va cetasā vā,
Saṅghe kukammaṃ pakataṃ mayā yaṃ,
Saṅgho paṭiggaṇhatu accayantaṃ,
Kālantare saṃvarituṃ va saṅghe.

Whatever bad kamma I have done to the Saṅgha
by body, by speech, or by mind,
may the Saṅgha accept my admission of it,
so that in the future I may show restraint toward the Saṅgha.


With metta

Element
Element
 

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Fede » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:33 pm

genkaku wrote:If it seems relevant, the medical profession adheres to the injunction, "Do no harm." It does not adhere to the injunction, "Do a lot of good." Why? My guess is that we invariably do harm of one kind or another and it behooves us to be on our toes. Further, once we utter the word "good," the world fills up with endless interpretations, many of them leading to a good deal of harm.


Actually, I believe you might be referring to the Hippocratic Oath - and nowhere, either in the original version, nor in the Modern version, do medics swear to 'do no harm'.
Why?
because by very virtue of the fact that at times they will have to cause a destruction or altheration to the human body, they will in some way, be constrained to do harm. Even if it's for the good.

Just thought I'd pitch this in, here......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1103798

The original version.....

And

the More modern one....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Individual, intelligent, bright and wise as you sometimes are, it is this insistence of yours to dispute with those clearly more knowlegeable than you, that makes me throw doubt upon the sagacity of your posts, and to have less faith in your ability to understand and interpret the Buddha's teachings.
Sometimes you attack subjects with a great deal of clarity and insight. But at others, your obstinacy does you - and others - no favours......

I am the least person to talk and to criticise. I know far less than I should, and it is a constant source of self-recrimination. But if I am to learn, i understand that unless it's backed up and agreed with by others (and your posts often are!) I need to take much of what I read, with a pinch of salt (no more than 6g per day.)

Which is a pity, because you had me believing you there, for a moment or two.....! :D

As ever, I am grateful to all for an illuminating thread......
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/
User avatar
Fede
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:57 pm

Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:An inference based on the Pali canon.

The Dhamma is eternal (SN 47.13), precisely the reason it's a secure refuge:

This passage doesn't say the Dhamma is eternal. It says that just because Sariputta died doesn't mean the teachings died with him. The Buddha was reminding Ananda that it is the teaching which matters, not any particular teacher; Ananda could still develop the Path even though Sariputta had died.

He didn't say the "teaching". He said the aggregate of virtue, of concentration, discernment, release, and knowledge & vision. It's basically implied that, while teachings and teachers are subject to decay, these aggregates of liberation are eternal (hence the "forgotten" path, "re-discovered" by the Buddha, not merely the "teaching\belief-system created by Buddha,"). Dhamma doesn't always mean the "teaching", but also the truth\practice the teaching is pointing to.

Peter wrote:Really, Individual, these arguments of yours are so old. I'm sure you've read plenty of refutations of them over on E-S. If you are still convinced the suttas teach an eternal self perhaps you would rather go find the Dark Zen folks and study under them; I recall they have their own forum over at Beliefnet.

Dark Zen is a cult run by a dork. Please don't insult me.

retrofuturist wrote:As for your speculation on "self", are you a puggalavadin?

I am not a puggalavadin, because that would be a speculative wrong view. But I do think that, as with Theravadin Abhidhamma, Puggalavadin philosophy could be useful in illustrating the truth. Whereas the explicit philosophical notion of a puggala isn't upheld by modern Mahayanins, the notion of a "true self," "supreme self," etc., what Zen Buddhists call "one's own true nature," runs throughout several Mahayana sutras (see Wikipedia's article on Buddha-nature). And this same notion of Buddha-nature runs through the Pali canon, in the Buddha's description of luminous mind and his positive description of Nibbana. I have heard Gil Fronsdal make this claim before, that the Pali canon is mostly "negative" descriptions, but the Mahayana is a more "positive" description. Not my own fabrication.

Element wrote:You are sounding like a Mahayanan muni

That is a very lofty compliment.

Fede wrote:Individual, intelligent, bright and wise as you sometimes are, it is this insistence of yours to dispute with those clearly more knowlegeable than you, that makes me throw doubt upon the sagacity of your posts, and to have less faith in your ability to understand and interpret the Buddha's teachings.

Your criticism seems to be arbitrarily dependent on time and place. If I were to argue with a Mahayana monk in a Mahayana Buddhist forum about Mahayana sectarianism, you could make the same claim. If a Theravadin monk today had the same views during Asoka's reign and criticized Puggalavada with a more senior monk back then, you could make the same claim.

Right here and now, those more wise than me have a different view, but those here and now are not sum of all wise people in the world, past, present, and future. Consider that there have been many wise people in the past who did not share their view, but shared mine, or who didn't share either of our views but a totally different one, and that in the future, their views might not necessarily be regarded as "wise" and mine as "foolish". The wisdom of an assertion should be judged with mindfulness, not on the conceit of comparing one "person" with another, saying, "Oh, well he's wise, so everything he says is correct," but "Oh, he's not as wise, so I should be skeptical of what he says," and "Oh, he's a complete fool. I should ignore everything he says." That is conceit.

With metta :heart:,
Individual
Last edited by Individual on Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby retrofuturist » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:04 pm

Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:I am not a puggalavadin, because that would be a speculative wrong view. But I do think that, as with Theravadin Abhidhamma, Puggalavadin philosophy could be useful in illustrating the truth. Whereas the explicit philosophical notion of a puggala isn't upheld by modern Mahayanins, the notion of a "true self," "supreme self," etc., what Zen Buddhists call "one's own true nature," runs throughout several Mahayana sutras (see Wikipedia's article on Buddha-nature). And this same notion of Buddha-nature runs through the Pali canon, in the Buddha's description of luminous mind and his positive description of Nibbana. I have heard Gil Fronsdal make this claim before, that the Pali canon is mostly "negative" descriptions, but the Mahayana is a more "positive" description. Not my own fabrication.

Repeat after me... "not self, not I, not mine" :reading:

That applies to all mindstates, including a luminous one.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:14 pm

I dont think it is altogether necessary for us to use via negativa language. We can point out that to those who knew the Buddha personally he was supremely kind, calm and compassionate. While these qualities could be discerned objectively, it is clear that there was no identification on the side of the Buddha with them. While we always say something from a conceptual point of view or at some level rest our way of perceiving in some kind of axiomatic paradigm, the Buddha did not. This is why the Buddha could not suffer. I think that this is all we need to know about the Buddha and his doctrine.

Metta

Gabriel

PS: I still delight in all the doctrinal formulations. :popcorn:
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:16 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:I am not a puggalavadin, because that would be a speculative wrong view. But I do think that, as with Theravadin Abhidhamma, Puggalavadin philosophy could be useful in illustrating the truth. Whereas the explicit philosophical notion of a puggala isn't upheld by modern Mahayanins, the notion of a "true self," "supreme self," etc., what Zen Buddhists call "one's own true nature," runs throughout several Mahayana sutras (see Wikipedia's article on Buddha-nature). And this same notion of Buddha-nature runs through the Pali canon, in the Buddha's description of luminous mind and his positive description of Nibbana. I have heard Gil Fronsdal make this claim before, that the Pali canon is mostly "negative" descriptions, but the Mahayana is a more "positive" description. Not my own fabrication.

Repeat after me... "not self, not I, not mine" :reading:

That applies to all mindstates, including a luminous one.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)

With reflection on notself, there can be a subtle commentary... This suffering is not self, I, or mine (it's just the way the world is or it's somebody else's). The joy is not self, I, or mine (it's just the way the world is or it's somebody else's). This equanimity is not self, I, or mine (it's just the way the world is or it's somebody else's). "Other-view" and "world-view" are both themselves forms of self-view.

Anatta: Your suffering is my suffering. Your joy is my joy. Your equanimity is my equanimity. But also, my suffering is your suffering. My joy is your joy. My equanimity is your equanimity.

How can you appreciate Zen while not knowing or caring about what they mean by "true nature"?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby retrofuturist » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:20 pm

Greetings Individual,

Individual wrote:Anatta: Your suffering is my suffering. Your joy is my joy. Your equanimity is my equanimity. But also, my suffering is your suffering. My joy is your joy. My equanimity is your equanimity.

No, the point of anatta is that these things are not self (not I, not mine)... not that they belong to anyone and everyone.

Individual wrote:How can you appreciate Zen while not knowing or caring about what they mean by "true nature"?

Understanding "true nature" is a synonym for seeing things as they really are, namely "not self, not I, not mine".

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:30 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

Individual wrote:Anatta: Your suffering is my suffering. Your joy is my joy. Your equanimity is my equanimity. But also, my suffering is your suffering. My joy is your joy. My equanimity is your equanimity.

No, the point of anatta is that these things are not self (not I, not mine)... not that they belong to anyone and everyone.

There is an unnecessary emphasis on particular language there. Our experiences arise co-dependently. You can interpret this as, "Nothing is mine" (the self-construct is arbitrary) or you can say, "Everything is shared," (the other-construct is arbitrary) and it is the same claim.

retrofuturist wrote:
Individual wrote:How can you appreciate Zen while not knowing or caring about what they mean by "true nature"?

Understanding "true nature" is a synonym for seeing things as they really are, namely "not self, not I, not mine".

...which could be called Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous, right?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby retrofuturist » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:36 pm

Greetings Individual,

"Everything is shared" is something else altogether, and is totally inconsistent with...

AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...

"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."


...which could be called Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous, right?

So long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:38 pm

Isnt our "true nature" no nature. Or rather our true nature is conditioned arising. Buddhas arise in the world by knowing what cannot be known by any characteristics. The world can be known by limitless characteristics which are all conditionally arisen. They all have no self nature and that is their nature thus "Buddha Nature". I do see that this way of teaching is highly prone to problematic interpretations and in my opinion probably only suitable to those who have developed a strong faith in the Buddhas achievements If at all.


Metta


Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:08 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

"Everything is shared" is something else altogether, and is totally inconsistent with...

AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...

"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."


...which could be called Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous, right?

So long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Let me see if I follow you.

"Everything is shared" is inconsistent with "I (atman) am the owner of my actions (kamma)" (AN 5.57)

But Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is okay terminology, so long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

That is... I say everything is shared, you insist on the Buddha's description of I being the owner of actions.

But then I say, "Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is the true atman," and you say I cannot say this. And yet, if I asked you, "Who owns karma? Is there a self that collects karma?" you would say no.

An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)

gabrielbranbury wrote:Isnt our "true nature" no nature. Or rather our true nature is conditioned arising. Buddhas arise in the world by knowing what cannot be known by any characteristics. The world can be known by limitless characteristics which are all conditionally arisen. They all have no self nature and that is their nature thus "Buddha Nature". I do see that this way of teaching is highly prone to problematic interpretations and in my opinion probably only suitable to those who have developed a strong faith in the Buddhas achievements If at all.


Metta


Gabriel

Yes, but "no nature" doesn't mean "nothing" or "non-existence." True nature is emptiness, which isn't simply nothingness, space, or non-existence.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:41 am

Greetings Individual,

Individual wrote:"Everything is shared" is inconsistent with "I (atman) am the owner of my actions (kamma)" (AN 5.57)

More accurately, my kamma is not the proximate cause for your vipaka... and "me" and "you" are conventional designations, not attas.

Individual wrote:But Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is okay terminology, so long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

Yes, although in Theravada there's no conception of Buddha-nature... that's Mahayana.

Individual wrote:That is... I say everything is shared, you insist on the Buddha's description of I being the owner of actions.

See the above point re: kamma and vipaka.

Individual wrote:But then I say, "Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is the true atman," and you say I cannot say this. And yet, if I asked you, "Who owns karma? Is there a self that collects karma?" you would say no.

Spot on.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:21 am

Individual, Ben,

The thread may have moved on a little from this, but anyway...
Ben wrote:Also, if you look at the canon and look at how the Buddha describes liberation, the translators have used the same linguistic conventions. Be careful that you do not associate negation as being morally or emotionally negative. Also be careful in substituting 'positive' synonyms, that you do not dilute the meaning of what is being said!

Ben might recall some relevant discussion of this we had elsewhere. As Ben says, using a negative construct, like "no suffering" is not being "negative". It's the most succinct and logical way of describing it.

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10231
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Element » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:06 am

Individual wrote:
Element wrote:You are sounding like a Mahayanan muni

That is a very lofty compliment.

Sorry Individual. It is not a compliment on a Theravadin forum.
Element
 

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Element » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:15 am

Individual wrote:He didn't say the "teaching". He said the aggregate of virtue, of concentration, discernment, release, and knowledge & vision. It's basically implied that, while teachings and teachers are subject to decay, these aggregates of liberation are eternal (hence the "forgotten" path, "re-discovered" by the Buddha, not merely the "teaching\belief-system created by Buddha,"). Dhamma doesn't always mean the "teaching", but also the truth\practice the teaching is pointing to.

Individual,

You need to re-read the sutta. The sutta states:
"But, Ananda, haven't I already taught you the state of growing different with regard to all things dear & appealing, the state of becoming separate, the state of becoming otherwise? What else is there to expect? It's impossible that one could forbid anything born, existent, fabricated & subject to disintegration from disintegrating.


E
Element
 

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Element » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:22 am

Individual wrote:There is an unnecessary emphasis on particular language there. Our experiences arise co-dependently. You can interpret this as, "Nothing is mine" (the self-construct is arbitrary) or you can say, "Everything is shared," (the other-construct is arbitrary) and it is the same claim.

Individual

This is not the intention of the Buddha's teaching of anatta. The purpose of anatta is to end dukkha.

If everything is 'shared' or 'ours', when the collective good ends, there will be dukkha.

You seem to be mixing the mundane with the supramundane. Metta et al are mundane teachings. :heart:

Maybe you are trying to say: "By anatta, everything is a gift, everything is borrowed but not owned. Life is to be used but not to be possessed".

Kind regards,

Element
Element
 

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:38 am

Element wrote:
Individual wrote:There is an unnecessary emphasis on particular language there. Our experiences arise co-dependently. You can interpret this as, "Nothing is mine" (the self-construct is arbitrary) or you can say, "Everything is shared," (the other-construct is arbitrary) and it is the same claim.

Individual

This is not the intention of the Buddha's teaching of anatta. The purpose of anatta is to end dukkha.

If everything is 'shared' or 'ours', when the collective good ends, there will be dukkha.

You seem to be mixing the mundane with the supramundane. Metta et al are mundane teachings. :heart:

Maybe you are trying to say: "By anatta, everything is a gift, everything is borrowed but not owned. Life is to be used but not to be possessed".

Kind regards,

Element

A series of exchanged gifts.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby kc2dpt » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:40 am

Individual wrote:Your suffering is my suffering.

If this is true then the Buddha lied when he taught the Third Noble Truth; he did not experience the end of suffering nor did any of the so called arahants... for I still experience suffering.

Individual wrote:An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)

Does this analogy signify that you wish to continue to promote a teaching of Atman as Buddhadhamma?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Element » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:41 am

Individual wrote:A series of exchanged gifts.

Do you mean like the Dhamma Stuka and I taught you, which you are now parroting on BC, where you called S & E "trolls" recently?

The Sangha always give freely and exchange the best of all gifts, which is the Dhamma.

The Sangha are full of metta-karuna but to some, metta-karuna is love of 'self' rather than love of Dhamma.

But still, all gifts are anatta. In Buddhism, there is the practising of purifying gifts, making them void or sunnata.

Even the Mahayanas teach the purification of gifts into emptiness.
Element
 

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Postby Individual » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:19 am

Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:Your suffering is my suffering.

If this is true then the Buddha lied when he taught the Third Noble Truth; he did not experience the end of suffering nor did any of the so called arahants... for I still experience suffering.

Through logic-chopping, one could concoct a variety of dubious inferences to say, "Then the Buddha lied if <insert particular teaching here>." It is peculiar that you'd recognize the absurdity of this when questioning Theravada and yet do exactly that when a different view is put forth. But then, if it's for your own benefit, your own path, who am I to question you?

Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)

Does this analogy signify that you wish to continue to promote a teaching of Atman as Buddhadhamma?

No.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Discovering Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests