mikenz66 wrote:What's the difference between my statement about "what you would like" and your statement that "x, y, z seem to believe"?
"What you would like" suggests a distortion based upon personal preferences. In other words, I would like for something to be a certain way, so I will interpret it thus according to my preferences, regardless of whether or not that is how it is. As mentioned elsewhere, I intend to fit to the Dhamma, not for the Dhamma to fit to me.
mikenz66 wrote:From my perspective you keep injecting what I see as completely spurious statements about how "intellectual and philosophical" certain things are. I'll ignore those for now.
You may ignore what you like of course, but even just this morning (i.e. after writing the post you responded to), I read the following in "Theravada Nyana" by Ven. Hegoda Khemananda, whom did not seem to find it so spurious...
"The act of realization constitutes its knowledge.
To perceive is to 'make it in one's eye'. It is to know through one's own faculties. Methodically and logically derived knowledge is inference . The dhamma (noble truth) cannot be known by logic. Hence it is called 'beyond the scope of logic' (atakkavacara). The commentators have described those who draw conclusions based on logic as 'view-addicts' .
(There are footnotes for  and  but they're only in Pali - let me know if you want, and I'll type them for you).
Also, the use of the word "intellectual" was not arbitrary - you said it yourself at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4425&start=20#p67648
mikenz66 wrote:Let's stick to the issue. There is a past, there is a present, there is a future. What we experience now is the present. What we know about the past is what we remember (which is experience) or infer (which is based on experience). What we know about the future is what we infer (based on experience). Nothing philosophical there.
The transition points between these 'three lives' constitute the major problem. Sankhara gets stripped down to cetana, and consciousness becomes reliant on re-birth linking consciousness which is not found in the suttas. How to observe or infer the 'when this arises, that comes to be. when this ceases, that ceases to be' relationship there, other than as a "view"? Do you believe it can be inferred from past and present experience (setting aside recall of past lives)? At the other lifetime-delineation, how to observe the relationship between bhava and jati (mistranslated as "re-birth"), other than as a "view"? Do you believe it can be inferred from past and present experience (setting aside recall of past lives)? In relation to those two "life-crossings", have you directly experienced them? Do you have any idea how you intended to experience them, short of crossing lives? How did the arahants know
that "jati is ended"? For that matter, how can dependent origination in its cessation (nirodha) mode be known
? Must one be dead to know it?
mikenz66 wrote:Is it philosophical to reflect on death? Plenty of that in the Suttas. Do you have a "present moment" way of interpreting that?
That depends precisely what shade of "philosophical" you're taking. It's not "speculative", if that's what you mean, and its a wise reflection for promoting dispassion.
mikenz66 wrote:Where did I, or the Commentaries, or the Visuddhimagga, say that the Dhamma was not to be experienced for oneself in the present moment? The whole point of the exercise is to know whatever can be known in the present moment. The Visuddhimagga is a guide on how to get to that point.
The answer to this may lie in how you answer my question above in relation to the life-spanning nidana crossings.
mikenz66 wrote:What I see in your statement above is some kind of philosophical or wishful-thinking argument ("I believe everything should be knowable in the present moment"). In my opinion that argument is the one that is bogged down in an intellectual-philosophical approach.
Again, you presume to think my views are how I wish for things to be. I've told you repeatedly that's not how I approach the Dhamma, yet you presist to represent my views as an arrogant distortion of the Dhamma, established to suit my own proclivities. In essence, this repeated assertion is no less than accusing me of arrogance and inventing my own Dhamma.
Don't mistake sectarian orthodoxy for "The One True Dhamma"... all Buddhist traditions fall into this trap at one time or another and it's not a sound form of argumentation. I wouldn't believe a Mahayanist when they do it, and see no a priori
reason why I should accept it from a Mahaviharist.