limit the influence of secular buddhism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Locked

should the influence of secular buddhism be limited on this forum?

yes - explain how
22
67%
no - explain why
11
33%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

DNS wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:00 pm Most secular buddhists believe that the Buddha did not teach rebirth
I have never heard the above. Dough Smith, who is a famous YouTuber with thousands of followers, gives the strong impression of being how I described.
DNS wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:00 pmthat it was a mis-translation, wrong interpretation, that it cannot exist with anatta or other such interpretation i.e., someone exactly like DooDoot.
The suttas translated as "rebirth" clearly say "a being" ("satta"), "man", "woman", "person" ("puggala") is "reborn". They never say not-self elements are "reborn". I trust Doot is correct and you are plainly wrong. If you were right, you could quote suttas supporting your point of view.
DNS wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:00 pmIf there was any current leader of this group, it would be Stephen Batchelor, who confirms that he cannot accept rebirth and does not state that he is going against the teachings and in fact interprets them to fit his agnostic views.
You need to provide evidence. Doug Smith appears to clearly adhere to the Sujatoist view of sutta. I regard Doug Smith is the pre-eminent Secular Buddhism. If you follow his prolific YouTube channel, you will find his interpretations of the suttas are generally quite mainstream.
Last edited by DNS on Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Unsubstantiated allegation and personal attack removed.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

Ryan95227 wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:47 pm I do agree rebirth is not main core of buddhist teaching. Are you saying that rebirth is not literal and is not real? If that is the case what's the point of practicing dhamma?
To say there is no point of practising Buddhism if there is no rebirth is contrary to the teachings.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings all,
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:59 pm There's evidently a lot of interest.
On the contrary, there's been no interest expressed by anyone regarding actually participating in a Secular Buddhism forum. All that has been expressed is an interest in labelling and ostracizing Dhamma views that differ from Right View with Asavas, despite what ToS2f says.

I would like to remind everyone of MN 143, where teachings are given to the lay-sekha Anāthapiṇḍika as he approached death... but they're a bit different to the karma and rebirth teachings commonly given to laymen and puthujjanas.
MN 143: Anāthapiṇḍikovādasutta wrote: Then you should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’ That’s how you should train. You should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by my mind, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on that.’ That’s how you should train.”

When he said this, Anāthapiṇḍika cried and burst out in tears. Venerable Ānanda said to him, “Are you failing, householder? Are you fading, householder?”

“No, sir. But for a long time I have paid homage to the Buddha and the esteemed mendicants. Yet I have never before heard such a Dhamma talk.”

“Householder, it does not occur to us to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople. Rather, we teach like this to those gone forth.”

“Well then, Master Sāriputta, let it occur to you to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople as well! There are gentlemen with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!”
To me this current hoopla has nothing whatsoever to do with Secular Buddhism or even "denying rebirth" - it is these two sets of teachings being misrepresented and pitted against each other - the Dhamma taught "to those gone forth" and the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople".

There is no need for us to take sides between those two, and I respect both, because the Buddha taught both, as the situation required, per the ability and capability of his audience. Therefore to see certain people suggesting (albeit unwittingly) that we degrade the Dhamma taught to those gone forth and call it Secular Buddhism in order to ostracize it, so that we can defend the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople" is quite frankly baffling to me. Yet here we are.

What would Anāthapiṇḍika do? :shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:08 pm It must be a strange kind of logic to call rebirth-linking consciousness a “materialist” idea :jumping:
Not at all. The Buddha appeared to teach the "jati of beings" is mental (SN 12.2) because the Buddha taught "a being" is "a view" (SN 23.2; SN 5.10). Therefore to assert "jati" is physical is certainly materialist. DNS would know this passage from the Bible:
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again"

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
BrokenBones
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by BrokenBones »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:53 am Greetings all,
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:59 pm There's evidently a lot of interest.
On the contrary, there's been no interest expressed by anyone regarding actually participating in a Secular Buddhism forum. All that has been expressed is an interest in labelling and ostracizing Dhamma views that differ from Right View with Asavas, despite what ToS2f says.

🤔
Is there a forum that only accepts members with right view without asavas? I'd like to join it... obviously there would be certain eligibility criteria.

A 'Dhamma' view that differs from Right View with asavas is either Wrong view or we're debating with an enlightened poster... although an enlightened poster would never denigrate any form of right view.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:27 am although an enlightened poster would never denigrate any form of right view.
The supramundane right view appears to be the only right view found in the Noble Path. It is right view according/leading to Nibbana.

The mundane right view appears not a factor of the Noble Path. It is right view according/leading to morality.

Morality is not Nibbana; nibbana is not morality.

The mundane view is to be grateful to mother & father; that there is good & bad actions leading to spontaneously arising in another world.

The views of Islam, Christianity, etc, are generally mundane right views. The Christian Bible, such as Luke 16:19-31, refers to spontaneous birth into heaven & hell due to karma. Christianity & Islam appear not related to the Noble Path.

It appears an error to regard all 'right views' as having equal merit.

:smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:38 am, edited 4 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings BrokenBones,

Not necessarily so... It's about the respective sets of views and their respective destinations, rather than the individual who holds them. I believe the following from MN117 was quoted earlier...
And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.

And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
The first is a path to heavenly realms, the second is the Noble Eightfold Path (note the bolding) which leads to unbinding.

As above, both were taught by the Buddha to different audiences.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
BrokenBones
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by BrokenBones »

If certain lines were bolded then a different reading may be ascertained...

"And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path?"

Putting carts before horses never really works... I think the Tibetan's are into this line of thought.

Addendum... it would carry more weight if this idea of two views was widespread within the suttas.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings BrokenBones,

By your logic, we could not discuss the Buddha because we're not Buddhas... we could not discuss arahants because we're not arahants... we could not discuss nibbana because we do not abide in nibbana, and so on.

If we can't discuss what lies ahead, or even where the Noble Eightfold Path itself begins, then what's the point in even being here?

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by salayatananirodha »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:53 am Greetings all,
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:59 pm There's evidently a lot of interest.
On the contrary, there's been no interest expressed by anyone regarding actually participating in a Secular Buddhism forum. All that has been expressed is an interest in labelling and ostracizing Dhamma views that differ from Right View with Asavas, despite what ToS2f says.

I would like to remind everyone of MN 143, where teachings are given to the lay-sekha Anāthapiṇḍika as he approached death... but they're a bit different to the karma and rebirth teachings commonly given to laymen and puthujjanas.
MN 143: Anāthapiṇḍikovādasutta wrote: Then you should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’ That’s how you should train. You should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by my mind, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on that.’ That’s how you should train.”

When he said this, Anāthapiṇḍika cried and burst out in tears. Venerable Ānanda said to him, “Are you failing, householder? Are you fading, householder?”

“No, sir. But for a long time I have paid homage to the Buddha and the esteemed mendicants. Yet I have never before heard such a Dhamma talk.”

“Householder, it does not occur to us to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople. Rather, we teach like this to those gone forth.”

“Well then, Master Sāriputta, let it occur to you to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople as well! There are gentlemen with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!”
To me this current hoopla has nothing whatsoever to do with Secular Buddhism or even "denying rebirth" - it is these two sets of teachings being misrepresented and pitted against each other - the Dhamma taught "to those gone forth" and the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople".

There is no need for us to take sides between those two, and I respect both, because the Buddha taught both, as the situation required, per the ability and capability of his audience. Therefore to see certain people suggesting (albeit unwittingly) that we degrade the Dhamma taught to those gone forth and call it Secular Buddhism in order to ostracize it, so that we can defend the Dhamma taught to "white-clothed laypeople" is quite frankly baffling to me. Yet here we are.

What would Anāthapiṇḍika do? :shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
i feel that you are reading a lot more into DooDoot's posts than is actually there. which is charitable of you.
i wasn't saying there was a lot of interest in a secular buddhism forum but there was a lot of interest in improving the management of the forum, protecting theravada against the influence of secular buddhism
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings salayatananirodha,
salayatananirodha wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:09 am but there was a lot of interest in improving the management of the forum, protecting theravada against the influence of secular buddhism
Sure, but what I'm saying is that "Secular Buddhism" is a straw-man that you're inadvertently propagating by misunderstanding, misreading and/or misrepresenting what certain others are saying. To wit, it's a fiction of your own making.

That's not to say there's not more we could do so that the two different approaches to the Dhamma are both respected, tolerated and supported, but you inadvertently attacking one of them does not, to my eyes at least, appear to be the solution.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

protecting theravada against the influence of secular buddhism

Post by salayatananirodha »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:46 am
robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
Sounds like a superb idea. For the same reason that having the Classical forums is wonderful, because there the Abhidhamma and Commentaries can be carefully examined without constant sniping that "The Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha". [And, of course, it's proper that members can debate that elsewhere if they wish.]
robertk wrote:Thanks mike- I am in full agreement. Having the classical forum is a real refuge for anyone wanting to discuss orthodox theravada without unnecessary distractions. And also Early Buddhism allows those members to discuss without people like me sniping them about their perceived lack of orthodoxy.

It seems though that "General Theravada " needs a bit more refinement which an additional forum - like 'secular ' would add.
i want to point this out again as a great suggestion. there are plenty of secular buddhists who are not offended by being called secular buddhists. stephen batchelor as i recall accepts that - even tho he believes he's truer to the original intentions of the buddha - that his position is a deviation from buddhism as we know it. (i watched the debate between him and ajahn brahmali)

if someone can't accept that their position is quite evidently and flat-out contrary to the theravāda that's their problem.
again: similarly, we don't eject mahayana, vajrayana, etc. but we also don't allow them to take over the forum and turn it into a safe space for their ideas. if someone wants to challenge rebirth they can do it in their own thread. literally, if nothing else, stop letting threads be derailed by rebirth denial!
Another approach would be to move all posts debating rebirth to The Great Rebirth Debate: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41, but that would be an incredible burden on the moderation team, given their sheer volume.

:heart:
Mike
If you proceeded with an argument using rebirth as a given, would it have to be moved, or would it just be the (off-topic) response someone makes challenging rebirth? If the latter then I also like this suggestion, but if every post or topic that relied on accepting rebirth had to be moved, then secular buddhism would basically be the default position of the forum.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:31 am
retrofuturist wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:08 am
...
Make it a true free speech page then and let anything go. It’s clearly not a Theravadin discussion forum. Why suppress the Mahayana? To me it seems if you want this to be broadly a Theravadin discussion page then certain views need to be limited, which is what you do already. The OP is merely asking for consistency. A sub-section is a perfect compromise between having a free for all general Dhamma discussion and enforced dogma. It’s worked well in past. It can work well here. Having certain people constantly derail threads on basic Theravadin teachings isn’t a sensible way to run a Theravadin discussion page, it seems to me. If I join a Christian forum I don’t expect atheists to be running around everywhere, derailing conversations left, right and centre. Some of my own views of late shouldn’t really be tolerated here, but that’s what the early Buddhism sub-section is for. A place where other views can be expressed whilst keeping the main page for what it was intended for.
yes, this is what i'm talking about. these diversions have been going on for quite a while and are obvious and frustrating to long-standing members, including apparently moderators. this suggestion is for forum management, not for creating an echo chamber.
perkele wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:27 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:08 amMy general suggestion would be to be less intolerant of people who see things differently to you. I know it's 2021, but not everything and everyone needs to be cancelled. It's a discussion forum, not the Gestapo or the Ministry Of Truth.
Seems like an extreme and disingenuous misrepresentation of the OP's request, unncessarily wrapped into the politicized language of a culture warrior.
There are forum sections here in which the commentaries are considered authoritative and not allowed to be questioned, where the Abhidhamma is considered authoritative and not allowed to be questioned, etc., all of which is considered fair and reasonable for the scope of this forum.
It seems a bit strange then that the view that rebirth is merely mythological or metaphorical is considered fair game everywhere.

Not that I want to shut anyone up. And I did not vote. I just think an explicit secular buddhist section could be useful to channel such discussions and not derail others.
:goodpost:
well said, simply
BrokenBones wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:34 pm Since rebirth is such a fundamental part of the Buddha's teaching I can't see why it should be undermined in every other thread. If the Abhidhamma (a much disputed teaching) is given special treatment then I can see no other reason than partisanship for not giving similar consideration to a foundation of the Buddha's teaching. I'm sure that there are many Buddhist forums which accept that rebirth is a myth but surely a Theravadin forum should only allow such debate in its own sub forum. That way certain people's posts can proliferate to their hearts content in a fenced off section and the rest of the forum won't have to be plagued.
it honestly might be more popular in america/the western world taking what you want out of the buddha's teaching and dismiss what doesn't fit in with a secular worldview than actual religious buddhism. there might be more places where rebirth denial is the default view. that's why i consider it important to protect and preserve this as a place where you should be able to come to discuss authentic buddhism (from a theravada perspective). i would like to understand the site admins' hesitancy in intervening in this scenario. they appear to be people of faith. listen to the input of long-standing members, including moderators and understand that this suggestion has good intentions
TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:58 pm The complaint isn't about rebirth. It's about secular buddhism which happens to have a very specific interpretation about it. Is this view allowed? Of course. Should ppl be allowed to preach about it on basically every thread when it's not relevant? that's the bigger question here.
yep
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:22 am Isn't outright no rebirth meaning a nihilism that was rejected by Buddha?
Why do we give a separate section for annihilates?
because they pervade and suffuse the forum without respecting basic criteria that determine a theravada buddhist from a secular one.
and because ejecting them is considered too harsh
retrofuturist wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:08 am Greetings,

This all seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

I don't know a single member here who denies that the Buddha taught rebirth. All that differs is interpretations of its significance and meaning...

Is it central and essential, or is it a Right View with Asavas that is ultimately to be transcended by Right View without Asavas?

I don't think either perspective should be made to be unwelcome as they're both very much arguable with recourse to the Suttas.

My general suggestion would be to be less intolerant of people who see things differently to you. I know it's 2021, but not everything and everyone needs to be cancelled. It's a discussion forum, not the Gestapo or the Ministry Of Truth.

Metta,
Paul. :)
DooDoot wrote:
Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhī

The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.’
The above Dhamma refuge appears to exclude any belief in a post-mortem rebirth. End of story. End of discussion.

:strawman: :jedi:
this is why i would say you were being disingenuous. and you're aware not just of my reports because i'm not the only one
you're also informed by your political views as regards 'cancel culture'. which i find to be a fairly concerning trend in this day and age. you really shouldn't assume otherwise because i am reporting off-topic, derailing content. if you knew about my political positions you'd actually be surprised, i think - maybe not.
DooDoot wrote:Individuals who were fanatics about drugs, sex, etc, with addictive personalities, should avoid making Buddhism their next fanatical addiction. Instead, they should learn to remove their defilements. This is what a beginner must learn to do. Remove or reduce their defilements. :smile:
Individuals who have just recently (tried) given up sexual fundamentalism, such as BDSM, should not be encouraged into religious fundamentalism.

Instead, these individuals with fanatical tendencies (anusaya) should reduce or temper their defilements (kilesa).
this is the weird, rude, gaslighting ad hom that he pulls in various threads in addition to antagonizing and derailing. sure, i can use it as a personal point of reflection, but it's bad forum etiquette. anyway, there's a lot more here than trying to silence one single (but very disruptive) forum member, and you should read what others and i say more charitably
i put a lot of work into making the OP focused and easy to read because i genuinely care and want y'all to consider it
even if you wanted to you couldn't banish secularism but you can make it more obvious that it is distinct from theravāda
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
BrokenBones
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by BrokenBones »

Hi Paul

That is not what I'm saying at all. But if we denigrate Right View (with asavas as you put it) then there is little hope of progressing to right view (without asavas as you put it). If people can argue the faults of right view (with asavas..) then we are either to assume their enlightenment or take it as addhama. Nowhere in the suttas does the Buddha denigrate or question right view (with asavas..).
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings BrokenBones,
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am But if we denigrate Right View (with asavas as you put it) then there is little hope of progressing to right view (without asavas as you put it).
Agree, more or less. Denigrating it serves no purpose.
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am If people can argue the faults of right view (with asavas..) then we are either to assume their e
enlightenment or take it as addhama.
Again, this is not justified by MN117. Do you use this logic when determining whether we're allowed to discuss nibbana, jhana, the breaking of fetters etc? If not, what's the difference? If I spoke of arahantship would you accuse me of Wrong View because I am not an arahant? It is good to be consistent.
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am Nowhere in the suttas does the Buddha denigrate or question right view (with asavas..).
Agreed. And for all of salayatananirodha's words, you have (IMO) correctly identified the crux of any actual issue that may exist here.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
BrokenBones
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by BrokenBones »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:35 am Greetings BrokenBones,
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am But if we denigrate Right View (with asavas as you put it) then there is little hope of progressing to right view (without asavas as you put it).
Agree, more or less. Denigrating it serves no purpose.
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am If people can argue the faults of right view (with asavas..) then we are either to assume their e
enlightenment or take it as addhama.
Again, this is not justified by MN117. Do you use this logic when determining whether we're allowed to discuss nibbana, jhana, the breaking of fetters etc? If not, what's the difference? If I spoke of arahantship would you accuse me of Wrong View because I am not an arahant? It is good to be consistent.
BrokenBones wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:27 am Nowhere in the suttas does the Buddha denigrate or question right view (with asavas..).
Agreed. And for all of salayatananirodha's words, you have (IMO) correctly identified the crux of any actual issue that may exist here.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hi Paul
I don't really follow the logic that you seem to be imposing on me.
If you spoke of arahantship then I would read with interest... if you claimed that arahantship was a myth I would have serious concerns. This is totally different from discussing an arahant. All Dhamma teachings are up for discussion and interpretation but denying those very teachings with weasel words and magnificent obtuseness seems a bit much.
Locked