limit the influence of secular buddhism

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

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 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:15 pm To assert that a dualist theory is a monist theory is a contradiction in terms. You might be tempted to fall back on supervenience, but i would make the same charge. In short, you are making irrational claims. To say that the Buddhist theory of rebirth is materialism would be akin to arguing that a circle is a square. There is nothing in the traditional model which binds one to materialism. I hope that is clearer for you, although I sadly somewhat doubt your ability to keep up here.
Zero argument. Carry on with the non-Buddhist gibberish. :soap:

Dhamma is as follows:
SN 23.3 wrote:'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

"Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there (satto), tied up there (visatto), one is said to be 'a being (satto).'
SN 5.10 wrote:Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
SN 12.2 wrote:And what is birth? Whatever birth... of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
The Buddha appeared to say "a being" is a "view" or "convention" and also said "jati" is the jati of "beings". This appears to be mental rather than materialistic. You are welcome to provide sutta evidence to the contrary to support your view a material birth is not materialistic. :smile:
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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:12 pm
The Buddha appeared to say "a being" is a "view" or "convention" and also said "jati" is the jati of "beings". This appears to be mental rather than materialistic. You are welcome to provide sutta evidence to the contrary to support your view a material birth is not materialistic. :smile:
If it were a materialist doctrine there would be no concept of rebirth-linking consciousness, as per DN 15 and others. If you can't see how irrational it is to claim a dualistic worldview is materialism then you really are lost to all reason. I may as well being talking to SteRo at this point.
“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.”
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:00 pm Denying that the Buddha taught rebirth, or that dependent origination has nothing to do with rebirth, is not Theravāda.
Thanks for inadvertently highlighting what a dangerous slippery slope this Dhamma policing business is. Whilst your first point is almost certainly true, I could easily list prominent Theravada bhikkhus who disagree with Buddhaghosa's "3 lifetime" transmigration model of paticcasamuppada. Before you know it, Dhamma policing leads towards totalitarianism, which leads you out on your ear before your feet touch the ground. Have you already forgotten your E-Sangha experience, Ceisiwr? That's what happened to you, was it not?

:popcorn:

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
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,
TRobinson465 wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:55 pm The idea that the Buddha taught "Both" an intricate metaphor that doesnt actually exist and a literal thing that does exist is the Mahayana concept of non-duality on steroids.
Two suttas have already been provided which show conclusively that different audiences were taught differently. Were the pitchforks not primed, people would actually be willing to regard this as one of the strengths of the Buddha as a teacher - that he could know what teaching was most suited to the ability and capability of his audience... but today, the wannabe Dhamma police are calling such discernment in teaching "the Mahayana concept of non-duality". :shrug:

Right-e-o.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:02 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:00 pm Denying that the Buddha taught rebirth, or that dependent origination has nothing to do with rebirth, is not Theravāda.
Thanks for inadvertently highlighting what a dangerous slippery slope this Dhamma policing business is. Whilst your first point is almost certainly true, I could easily list prominent Theravada bhikkhus who disagree with Buddhaghosa's "3 lifetime" transmigration model of paticcasamuppada. Before you know it, Dhamma policing leads towards totalitarianism, which leads you out on your ear before your feet touch the ground. Have you already forgotten your E-Sangha experience, Ceisiwr? That's what happened to you, was it not?

:popcorn:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Totalitarianism applies to societies, not chat boards. It’s simply a matter of definition. If a Sarvāstivādin doesn’t accept dhammas existing in the 3 times then they aren’t really a Sarvāstivādin. They are a Sautrāntika. E-Sangha doesn’t apply since we are talking about making space for people to air said views, whereas in that cesspit they were simply banned.
“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.”
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:12 am Totalitarianism applies to societies, not chat boards. It’s simply a matter of definition.
You've been spoiled here, lad. :lol:
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:12 am E-Sangha doesn’t apply since we are talking about making space for people to air said views, whereas in that cesspit they were simply banned.
And the space for people who want the Buddhaghosa world view to go unchallenged is called the Classical Theravada section. The General section allows for the full spectrum of Sutta, Early Buddhism and Theravada perspectives.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:18 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:12 am Totalitarianism applies to societies, not chat boards. It’s simply a matter of definition.
You've been spoiled here, lad. :lol:
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:12 am E-Sangha doesn’t apply since we are talking about making space for people to air said views, whereas in that cesspit they were simply banned.
And the space for people who want the Buddhaghosa world view to go unchallenged is called the Classical Theravada section. The General section allows for the full spectrum of Sutta, Early Buddhism and Theravada perspectives.

Metta,
Paul. :)
And the secular position of no rebirth or Buddha being agnostic can go in the secular section, which also stops other threads from being derailed.
“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.”
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:24 am And the secular position of no rebirth or Buddha being agnostic can go in the secular section, which also stops other threads from being derailed.
Regardless of how such positions are characterised, anything which "derails" a topic is, by nature, "off-topic".

The process of reporting off-topic postings is as old as this forum itself.

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
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:58 pm If it were a materialist doctrine there would be no concept of rebirth-linking consciousness, as per DN 15 and others.
Off-topic most likely, but you're welcome to show us the Sutta evidence for this "rebirth linking consciousness"

:popcorn:

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:34 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:58 pm If it were a materialist doctrine there would be no concept of rebirth-linking consciousness, as per DN 15 and others.
Off-topic most likely, but you're welcome to show us the Sutta evidence for this "rebirth linking consciousness"

:popcorn:

Metta,
Paul. :)
I gave you one in the quote.
“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.”
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: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:27 am Regardless of how such positions are characterised, anything which "derails" a topic is, by nature, "off-topic".

The process of reporting off-topic postings is as old as this forum itself.

Metta,
Paul. :)
seems like you close a lot of reports without considering them much
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:55 pm Trolling also has to be considered. If someone has been a member here for years yet at every chance derails threads by revisiting a topic that A) we all know where they stand on and B) they know where everyone else stands, then it looks less like honest debating and more like attention seeking trolling. An honest person would, after so many years, simply accept the disagreement and leave it at that. A troll would not.
i know multiple people who have him on foes list. he's the only one on my foes list, but when he comments often i end up reading some of his stuff. not all of it is so bad. but like bringing up my post about having sex obsession and bdsm and using it to dismiss my thoughts is just really tacky and disrespectful. i can handle it but i've seen him bully other people in a low-key way. it doesn't make for a friendly and inviting atmosphere. he's one of the most unpleasant people on here tbh and a saboteur at that. but even if you he were banned, the theological, technical issue i raised would still stand. DNS recognizes what i and others have said, so that relieves me of some mental unease, regardless of what decision he makes. this issue has been known and its apparent by the votes and the comments and contributions of regular members, including moderators.
retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:34 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:58 pm If it were a materialist doctrine there would be no concept of rebirth-linking consciousness, as per DN 15 and others.
Off-topic most likely, but you're welcome to show us the Sutta evidence for this "rebirth linking consciousness"

:popcorn:

Metta,
Paul. :)
MN 38
Last edited by salayatananirodha on Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:08 am Greetings,
TRobinson465 wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:55 pm The idea that the Buddha taught "Both" an intricate metaphor that doesnt actually exist and a literal thing that does exist is the Mahayana concept of non-duality on steroids.
Two suttas have already been provided which show conclusively that different audiences were taught differently. Were the pitchforks not primed, people would actually be willing to regard this as one of the strengths of the Buddha as a teacher - that he could know what teaching was most suited to the ability and capability of his audience... but today, the wannabe Dhamma police are calling such discernment in teaching "the Mahayana concept of non-duality". :shrug:

Right-e-o.

Metta,

Paul. :)
You might as well work for Fox News since you're always just deflecting everything to the culture wars/language policing rather than looking at the points authentically.

The passage you provided was
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!”

I do not deny that the Buddha taught monastics and laypeople differently. What i asked was how did you get the idea that denying rebirth completely was one of the teachings the Buddha reserved for monastics since you said people were "calling the dhamma taught to monastics secular buddhism". the sutta you provided says you should not grasp for the other world, not that it doesn't exist at all. and you cant argue that that the translation of "grasp" really means it doesn't exist because in the same sutta in the next sentence it also says you "shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by my mind" and there is no such teaching, at least not in Theravada Buddhism, that everything you see hear and think about doesn't really exist in any way and is just some intricate metaphor.

Furthermore secular Buddhists almost always deny that the "next world" in MN 117 actually talks about the literal next life and say the Lord Buddha is really talking about something else.
And what is wrong view?

‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, micchādiṭṭhi?

‘Natthi dinnaṁ, natthi yiṭṭhaṁ, natthi hutaṁ, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko, natthi ayaṁ loko, natthi paro loko, natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lokaṁ parañca lokaṁ sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedentī’ti—

Yet you cite MN 143 and basically affirm that he actually is talking about the literal afterlife when he says "paro loko" and that denying its existence is a wrong view.
‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’

‘na paralokaṁ upādiyissāmi, na ca me paraloka nissitaṁ viññāṇaṁ bhavissatī’ti.
Just pointing that out. And MN 117 was directed to monastics in case anyone wants to go all "Going forth" Dhamma > "lay people" Dhamma.
Last edited by TRobinson465 on Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
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: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:29 am seems like you close a lot of reports without considering them much
It seems like you report a lot of posts without explaining how they actually violate the Terms Of Service. Moderators moderate according to the Terms Of Service, not the likes, dislikes, intolerances or perceived mental burdens of Salayatananirodha. This is explained in the Terms Of Service itself.
Terms of Service - Extract from Section 4 wrote:At Dhamma Wheel, we respect your intellectual and spiritual autonomy. As such, the staff here will not enforce reverence to anyone or anything, nor censor speech gratuitously. In keeping with this respect for your autonomy, we expect you to be personally responsible for your own emotions and responses. If there are forum members you do not wish to engage with, please apply restraint and/or register them in the system as foes - do not publicly complain about them.

Speech and actions are moderated strictly and impartially according to the standards defined in the Terms of Service - not to the standard of Sutta, Vinaya, personal preference, nor any other code and/or standard of conduct. If you believe acts of moderation are not aligned with the Terms of Service, please engage the Dhamma Wheel complaints procedure.
I'd recommend you re-familiarise yourself with the Terms Of Service, and reflect upon the meaning of the words "terms of service" before complaining that they are being executed faithfully.

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 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:24 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:18 am And the space for people who want the Buddhaghosa world view to go unchallenged is called the Classical Theravada section. The General section allows for the full spectrum of Sutta, Early Buddhism and Theravada perspectives.

Metta,
Paul. :)
And the secular position of no rebirth or Buddha being agnostic can go in the secular section, which also stops other threads from being derailed.
:clap:
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,
TRobinson465 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:33 am What i asked was how did you get the idea that denying rebirth completely was one of the teachings the Buddha reserved for monastics
This was not said. You are fake news, which is ironic given that you compared me to Fox News.

Similarly, your inability to comprehend what I actually said, renders the remainder of your indignant papanca moot and irrelevant.

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."
Locked