mikenz66 wrote:Let's just put Nanavira up against Buddhaghosa and be done with it.
mikenz66 wrote:"According to ME, RETRO is mistaken".
retrofuturist wrote:I've never heard someone put hand on heart and say what benefit they've gotten out of the Mahavihara approach to dependent origination. I'd be fascinated to know. ...
mikenz66 wrote:It took me quite a lot of time this morning to research and write on the other thread the rather small amount that I did on how I view some of the Visuddhimagga explanations.
mikenz66 wrote:It seems to me that your/Nanavira's objection to the commentarial interpretation revolves around an argument to do with statements about past and future being less phenomenological than you would like.
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Peter,PeterB wrote:Thats the whole point it seems to me. There is an assumption that to hold the view that there is is one true Dhamma is in and of itself negative.
I think that begs many questions. I think its actually a positive statement.
As I said what interests me is what that response puts aside..i.e. the need to think that there is not one true Dhamma.
I dont think it needs an over literal mind to see that the Buddha himself said that there was.
I agree. However, as I said in my last post, it's probably not very helpful to say something like:
"Member X is completely confused about the Dhamma and if only he'd listen to me things would be OK."
retrofuturist wrote:mikenz66 wrote:It seems to me that your/Nanavira's objection to the commentarial interpretation revolves around an argument to do with statements about past and future being less phenomenological than you would like.
The "than you would like" aspect is irrelevant, because it's not what we like that will lead us to the cessation of suffering. It's more that Nanavira, Nanananda, Buddhadasa, Patrick Kearney, Ajahn Sumedho, various Dhamma Wheel members, many others and myself all seem to believe the suttas (generally, and also with respect to dependent origination) are pointing towards something to be experienced and verified personally, here-and-now (rather than just inferred, or even more remote from that... an intellectual, philosophical or metaphysical explanation) ...
Dan74 wrote:I think it may be worth distinguishing (again!) saying "there is one true Dhamma" and saying "I have one true Dhamma". After all we are on a path and have not reached the destination.
mikenz66 wrote:What's the difference between my statement about "what you would like" and your statement that "x, y, z seem to believe"?
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.
"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' .
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.
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?
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.
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.
alan wrote:Fight all you want but let's have some idea of what you are disputing...please?
alan wrote:Seriously--this is over my head. Maybe one of you can clarify?
retrofuturist wrote:Obviously we want to know what we need to know...
nathan wrote:I hope this cuts through the complications a little.
No doubt. Knowing is not having to think about, anymore.retrofuturist wrote:Thank you Nathan.
I read your most recent posts in the jhana topic and see these words against that context.nathan wrote:I hope this cuts through the complications a little.
Yes, and anything that does is a blessing.
nathan wrote:No doubt. Knowing is not having to think about, anymore.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Max Nanasy and 7 guests