Shifting the topic to my identity/person is an ad hominem.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:53 pmIt’s not an ad hom since I never made an argument for it be fallacious in said manner.
Newly Joined
Re: Newly Joined
Re: Newly Joined
No. If I said to you “you are a fool” that would be an insult but not an ad hom. An ad hom would be if i argued along the lines of your conclusion being wrong because you are a fool. As I simply made a statement and not an argument there was no ad hom. Ad hom’s apply to arguments not statements.
“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: Newly Joined
You made the argument that you are lucky because of my person. Which is not relevant at all to the discussion at hand, and is just derailing the thread.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:56 pmNo. If I said to you “you are a fool” that would be an insult but not an ad hom. An ad hom would be if i argued along the lines of your conclusion being wrong because you are a fool. As I simply made a statement and not an argument there was no ad hom. Ad hom’s apply to arguments not statements.
Re: Newly Joined
That was a statement not an argument. An argument has a conclusion based on premises. Lacking both no ad hom can be found. In other words, I didn’t claim you were wrong because of some character flaw.coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:58 pmYou made the argument that you are lucky because of my person. Which is not relevant at all to the discussion at hand, and is just derailing the thread.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:56 pmNo. If I said to you “you are a fool” that would be an insult but not an ad hom. An ad hom would be if i argued along the lines of your conclusion being wrong because you are a fool. As I simply made a statement and not an argument there was no ad hom. Ad hom’s apply to arguments not statements.
“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: Newly Joined
An argument is a statement, the minimum requirement is an axiom, it has nothing to do with a value assignment of right or wrong.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:02 pmThat was a statement not an argument. An argument has a conclusion based on premises. Lacking both no ad hom can be found. In other words, I didn’t claim you were wrong because of some character flaw.coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:58 pmYou made the argument that you are lucky because of my person. Which is not relevant at all to the discussion at hand, and is just derailing the thread.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:56 pm
No. If I said to you “you are a fool” that would be an insult but not an ad hom. An ad hom would be if i argued along the lines of your conclusion being wrong because you are a fool. As I simply made a statement and not an argument there was no ad hom. Ad hom’s apply to arguments not statements.
Definition of argument:
a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
Re: Newly Joined
“A coherent series of reasons...” in other words, premises and conclusions. Simply saying “you are ugly” is not an argument. I’m sorry you find this to understand. It’s ok though. In terms of ad hom most people don’t understand it and so misuse it.coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:04 pmAn argument is a statement, the minimum requirement is an axiom, it has nothing to do with a value assignment of right or wrong.
Definition of argument:
a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
Now, back to your claims. You claim the Abhidhamma is wrong view. Can you quote a section of Abhidhamma text that you feel proposes a wrong view based on sutta definitions of wrong view?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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: Newly Joined
You wrote You are lucky because of my person, that necessitates an argument. You postulated your luck which concluded with my person.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:09 pm“A coherent series of reasons...” in other words, premises and conclusions. Simply saying “you are ugly” is not an argument. I’m sorry you find this to understand. It’s ok though. In terms of ad hom most people don’t understand it and so misuse it.
You can read up on axioms here to see how short arguments can get: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
I don't communicate with people who have demonstrated bad faith. And also as per Right Speech rules, the speech must be beneficial to both parties, and I don't see anything beneficial in communicating with someone demonstrating bad faith as it's usually a waste of time.
Good luck!
Re: Newly Joined
Even your own link disproves your argument. An axiom is the beginning of an argument. On it’s own it’s not an argument itself. My comment was not an argument. It was a statement.coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:12 pm
You wrote "You are lucky because of my person", that necessitates an argument. You postulated your luck which concluded with my person.
You can read up on axioms here to see how short arguments can get: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Nice copout. Why do I get the sneaky feeling that like most people who decry the Abhidhamma you have barely even read it?I don't communicate with people who have demonstrated bad faith. And also as per Right Speech rules, the speech must be beneficial to both parties, and I don't see anything beneficial in communicating with someone demonstrating bad faith as it's usually a waste of time.
“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.”
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6492
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Newly Joined
Thanks. But I don't think your quotation from the Pāsādikasutta can be accurately paraphrased as:coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:40 pm ‘Seeing, one does not see,’ it’s of this that it should be said. Seeing what does one not see? One sees this: a spiritual path endowed with all good qualities, complete in all good qualities, neither too little nor too much, well explained, whole, full, and well propounded. One does not see this: anything that, were it to be removed, would make it purer. One does not see this: anything that, were it to be added, would make it more complete. Thus it is rightly said: ‘Seeing, one does not see.’
You speak of "the Buddha's teachings", but the Pāsādikasutta speaks of the brahmacariyā. In sutta usage brahmacariyā may refer either to celibacy (as in the Cūḷahatthipadopamasutta MN i. 179), to the samaṇa life in general (as in the Rathavinītasutta MN i. 147), or to the noble eightfold path (as in Paṭhama-aññatarabhikkhusutta SN v. 7). But in none of these three senses is its meaning co-extensive with the Buddha's teachings as a whole. The Buddha taught on countless subjects that have nothing at all to do with the brahmacariyā in any sense of the word.
Then you speak of a person having "wrong view", but the Pāsādikasutta speaks of a person "not seeing". To not see is not the same as to see wrongly; that is, it pertains to avijjā rather than to micchādiṭṭhi.
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)
Re: Newly Joined
Right view ≠ https://justpaste.it/48ny7
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: Newly Joined
That whole sutta, especially leading up to that quote is about the complete knowledge of a tathagatha, and the completeness of the path. Why would it mean anything other than the noble eightfold path and his entire teachings?Dhammanando wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:21 amThanks. But I don't think your quotation from the Pāsādikasutta can be accurately paraphrased as:coconut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:40 pm ‘Seeing, one does not see,’ it’s of this that it should be said. Seeing what does one not see? One sees this: a spiritual path endowed with all good qualities, complete in all good qualities, neither too little nor too much, well explained, whole, full, and well propounded. One does not see this: anything that, were it to be removed, would make it purer. One does not see this: anything that, were it to be added, would make it more complete. Thus it is rightly said: ‘Seeing, one does not see.’
You speak of "the Buddha's teachings", but the Pāsādikasutta speaks of the brahmacariyā. In sutta usage brahmacariyā may refer either to celibacy (as in the Cūḷahatthipadopamasutta MN i. 179), to the samaṇa life in general (as in the Rathavinītasutta MN i. 147), or to the noble eightfold path (as in Paṭhama-aññatarabhikkhusutta SN v. 7). But in none of these three senses is its meaning co-extensive with the Buddha's teachings as a whole. The Buddha taught on countless subjects that have nothing at all to do with the brahmacariyā in any sense of the word.
Then you speak of a person having "wrong view", but the Pāsādikasutta speaks of a person "not seeing". To not see is not the same as to see wrongly; that is, it pertains to avijjā than to micchādiṭṭhi.
The Buddha literally says that his teachings are complete and do not need to be modified (added or deducted).
If you have Right View then you know the entire path, and cannot say for example "you don't need jhanas", because that would be rejecting the fourth noble truth, which is the noble eightfold path. That is an example of someone having wrong view by removing from the teaching thinking they would make the teaching more purer by removing from it.
i.e.:
Right before that quoteOne does not see this: anything that, were it to be removed, would make it purer.
and before thatAnd if there’s any spiritual path of which it may be rightly said that it’s endowed with all good qualities, complete in all good qualities, neither too little nor too much, well explained, whole, full, and well propounded, it’s of this spiritual path that this should be said.
He's talking about the entire teachings "with all it's collected sayings". So yes, his teachings as a whole.I, Cunda, am a teacher who has arisen in the world today, perfected and fully awakened. The teaching is well explained and well propounded, emancipating, leading to peace, proclaimed by someone who is fully awakened. My disciples have inquired about the meaning of that good teaching. And the spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure has been disclosed and revealed to them with all its collected sayings, with its demonstrable basis, well proclaimed wherever there are gods and humans. I am a teacher today who is senior, long standing, long gone forth, advanced in years, and have reached the final stage of life.
and after that section he even specifies what he means by spiritual path:
So, Cunda, you should all come together and recite in concert, without disputing, those things I have taught you from my direct knowledge, comparing meaning with meaning and phrasing with phrasing, so that this spiritual path may last for a long time. That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans. And what are those things I have taught from my direct knowledge? They are the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening factors, and the noble eightfold path. These are the things I have taught from my own direct knowledge.
Re: Newly Joined
There are Originally five nikāyas (divisions):
- Dīgha
- Majjhima
- Saṃyutta
- Aṅguttara and K
- Khuddaka
as evidenced in Asoka pillars in India which can still be seen today.
The Buddha said His Dhamma will last for 500 years afterwhich it would be polluted.
His Words came true as Abhidhamma, Vissuddhimagga, Mahayana and others ( such as those added by the Burmese Buddhist council etc .. ) are added to the nikayas by the Buddhist councils in later years.
And Buddha did said that it is the Sangha who would pollute His Original Teachings
These are stated in the suttas for that matters ( will followup to inform on which suttas )
Therefore, I agree with the followings :
The Buddha said anyone who adds or subtracts from his teachings has wrong view.
There are many people on this forum who have the wrong interpretation of the dhamma.
- Abhidhamma followers
- Vissuddhimagga followers
- Atheist followers
- Nihilist no-self followers
- Jhana deniers
- Mahayana followers
- Dīgha
- Majjhima
- Saṃyutta
- Aṅguttara and K
- Khuddaka
as evidenced in Asoka pillars in India which can still be seen today.
The Buddha said His Dhamma will last for 500 years afterwhich it would be polluted.
His Words came true as Abhidhamma, Vissuddhimagga, Mahayana and others ( such as those added by the Burmese Buddhist council etc .. ) are added to the nikayas by the Buddhist councils in later years.
And Buddha did said that it is the Sangha who would pollute His Original Teachings
These are stated in the suttas for that matters ( will followup to inform on which suttas )
Therefore, I agree with the followings :
The Buddha said anyone who adds or subtracts from his teachings has wrong view.
There are many people on this forum who have the wrong interpretation of the dhamma.
- Abhidhamma followers
- Vissuddhimagga followers
- Atheist followers
- Nihilist no-self followers
- Jhana deniers
- Mahayana followers
Re: Newly Joined
Have you read either of these texts?
“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: Newly Joined
Have you? I have. Please settle the contradictions between path and fruit in both those texts, and also in patisambidhamagga which is older than visuddhimagga
Please explain why path and fruit is taught differently in Petakopadesa and Netti.
If you actually studied these texts then you would notice the numerous contradictions they not only have with eachother but with the Buddha's words.
I'm giving you homework to study the arising of path and fruit in
- suttas, agamas, and ghandharan fragments
- commentaries
- abhidhamma
- patisambhidhamagga
- netti
- petakopadesa
- vimuttimagga
- vissuddhimagga
because that's what I did 5 years ago, not to mention the Arthaviniscaya, Yogavchara, mahayanist texts, old sanskrit texts, and lost cambodian texts.
Go study and come back.
Not understanding path and fruit has implications that lead to wrong view, which is why people like you constantly ask how to attain sotapanna and how to know if one has it.
Anyone who has already gone on this pursuit of comparing texts understands why Early Buddhism is important.
Re: Newly Joined
Yes I have. You still haven’t quoted any of the Vism. or Abhidhamma texts which show a contradiction between the Suttas.coconut wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:11 amHave you? I have. Please settle the contradictions between path and fruit in both those texts, and also in patisambidhamagga which is older than visuddhimagga
Please explain why path and fruit is taught differently in Petakopadesa and Netti.
If you actually studied these texts then you would notice the numerous contradictions they not only have with eachother but with the Buddha's words.
I'm giving you homework to study the arising of path and fruit in
- suttas, agamas, and ghandharan fragments
- commentaries
- abhidhamma
- patisambhidhamagga
- netti
- petakopadesa
- vimuttimagga
- vissuddhimagga
because that's what I did 5 years ago, not to mention the Arthaviniscaya, Yogavchara, mahayanist texts, old sanskrit texts, and lost cambodian texts.
Go study and come back.
Not understanding path and fruit has implications that lead to wrong view, which is why people like you constantly ask how to attain sotapanna and how to know if one has it.
Anyone who has already gone on this pursuit of comparing texts understands why Early Buddhism is important.
I'm giving you homework to study the arising of path and fruit
“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.”