On Verification

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

On Verification

Post by SDC »

Manopubbangama wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:30 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:34 pm .

Sounds like ... Connections to other paths #0023
Theme: Small Nibbana (exactly the same thing as the "big" one, except duration?)

Verbatim Excerpts from:
Heart-wood from the Bo Tree
by BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU
http://www.meditation2.net/htdocs/Books ... o_Tree.htm

Disturbance, the feeling of "I" and "mine", comes every now and again, and its periodic arising is called birth. Whenever there is birth there is Dukkha. But there are also many moments when there is no birth and so no Dukkha at all. However, people stupidly skip over them and overlook the everpresent Nibbana, and so are unaware of its presence.

Even if it is only a very small Nibbana, merely a taste, it’s exactly the same thing as true, lasting Nibbana; it differs only in duration. It doesn’t last because we don’t know how to protect ourselves from the disease and how to destroy it. Consequently, every now and again the disease penetrates and interrupts Nibbana.
Metaphorical similarization and generalization of a "small nibbana" to the true one is somewhat understandable; however, using "exactly the same thing" is a totally different matter.

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Protecting genuine Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree


======
ps:
blue-highlights are not the main theme of this post, may be for near future.
Of course, I don't disagree with the concept of momentary births and deaths.
However, these blue-highlights (especially those underlined) may very well shed some lights on the Achilles’ heel of his particular version of momemtary birth paradigm.
Excellent work, sir. :anjali:

As far as the disdain for Pariyatti is concerned, as illustrated by your work here, absolutely shocking, and totally adhammic.

Pariyatti precedes patipatti which precedes pativedha.

We could also say: sila precedes samadhi and paññā.

If this were not the case, we would not need a Buddha to learn from. The Buddha is not an imaginary friend we chat with; his words are preserved in the Tipitika.

If we are climbing stairs, what is the point of saying "the 6th step is so much better than the 1st?" :shrug:

Samma-Ditthi precedes and cascades all of the other 7 ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo.

Zen fetishism and imitation is not necessary; if you want to read about how Sunyata is the central concept of Buddhism there is an entire library full of prajnaparamita literature to choose from, but copying these ideas and then stamping "Theravada" on them needs to be called out for what it is: plagiarism and misappropriation.
budo wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:37 pm Good work Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta!

I'm appalled that Buddhadasa downplays the suttas, he is basically telling you to ignore the Buddha.

These words coming from Buddhadasa are adhamma, let it be known:
Though a person may never have seen or even heard of the Tipitaka, if he carries out detailed investigation every time suffering arises and scorches his mind he can be said to be studying the Tipitaka directly, and far more correctly than people actually in the process of reading it.
For the dhamma-vinaya is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the dhamma-vinaya.

What the Buddha said on counterfeit Buddhism
"Even so, bhikkhus, will the bhikkhus become in the future. And those discourses spoken by the Tathaagata, profound in meaning, transcendental, dealing with voidness, to these they will not listen when they are recited, they will not lend an ear, they will not set the heart upon final knowledge[48] and will not consider that those things should be learned and mastered. But those discourses made by poets, poetry, mere beautiful words and phrases, spoken by outsiders and disciples, to these they will listen... they will consider that these things should be learned and mastered.

"Therefore, bhikkhus, I say, you should train yourselves thus:

"'Those discourses spoken by the Tathaagata profound in meaning, transcendental, dealing with voidness, to these we will listen when they are recited, we will lend an ear, we will set the heart upon final knowledge and we will consider that these things should be learned and mastered.'"
- SN 20.7
"These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

"But these five qualities tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live with respect, with deference, for the Teacher. They live with respect, with deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five qualities that tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma."
And finally the Buddha said a person who dwells in the true dhamma does two things: reads the suttas and attains jhanas
Showing that something deviates from a traditional interpretation is one thing - any person who can read can find discrepancies - but declaring something 'adhammic' implies experiential knowledge of what is and what is not Dhamma. I find it interesting that more than one member is willing to imply that about themselves in this thread. Honestly, those are hollow words. Anyone capable of such verification would plainly see that a practitioner would need to see it on their own (just as they are implying that they personally have), and that the word of another should lead to knowledge, not declare it outright.

So what are the qualifications for declaring something to be adhammic as opposed to identifying how it has deviated from an interpretation? Does it happen on the level of scholarship or does it require experiential knowledge?

(I'm not attacking you two, I'm just letting you know what you are both implying. If this is too personal, feel free to request I close this thread.)
"As fruits fall from the tree, so people too, both young and old, fall when this body breaks." - Raṭṭhapāla (MN 82)
Pārāpariya | Phussa | Subhā of Jīvaka’s Mango Grove | Kappa
User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: On Verification

Post by Manopubbangama »

Adhammic is something that blatantly contradicts the Tipitika.

Your guy, Harold Musson, was far more agile in slipping his ideas into his writings, and it actually takes a bit more work to tease out the fact that his ideas don't fit into the puzzle, whereas buddhadasa is clumsy and obviously counterfeit.

If someone tries to sell me pyrite and say its gold, any rational person would protest. Same goes with those who wish to create schisms in the Sangha.

Budo and SDA can speak for themselves, but they generally are in alignment with most monks I have met in my life; this doesn't necessarily imply 'correctness' but at least alignment to the majority of scholars who study the Tipitaka, and the people who follow heterodox gurus tend to only have a presence on the internet.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by SDC »

Manopubbangama wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 pm this doesn't necessarily imply 'correctness' but at least alignment to the majority of scholars who study the Tipitaka
Thank you for your honesty. I do think the distinction is important.
"As fruits fall from the tree, so people too, both young and old, fall when this body breaks." - Raṭṭhapāla (MN 82)
Pārāpariya | Phussa | Subhā of Jīvaka’s Mango Grove | Kappa
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by SDC »

Manopubbangama wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 pm Your guy, Harold Musson, was far more agile in slipping his ideas into his writings, and it actually takes a bit more work to tease out the fact that his ideas don't fit into the puzzle
He is pretty forthcoming that he does not mean to fit the puzzle. What I think is unique about Ven. Nanavira, to your point, is that he made it plainly clear that the writings were his experience with the Pali suttas and in no way attempted to structure his ideas in the way a scholar does. That is why I often say that the work to discredit his understanding must be done on a personal front.

Again, when it comes to verification, it is quite simple (as Ven. Bodhi showed in his critique of Ven. Nv’s Notes on Dhamma) to point out discrepancies based on scholarship, based on what is accepted in terms of accuracy over time. It is a whole other pursuit to take on an idea into your everyday framework and – as budo so rightly pointed out in another thread recently – apply it again and again until your know what that idea leads to in one’s experience. That is beyond scholarship every step of the way.
"As fruits fall from the tree, so people too, both young and old, fall when this body breaks." - Raṭṭhapāla (MN 82)
Pārāpariya | Phussa | Subhā of Jīvaka’s Mango Grove | Kappa
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:24 pm
Showing that something deviates from a traditional interpretation is one thing - any person who can read can find discrepancies - but declaring something 'adhammic' implies experiential knowledge of what is and what is not Dhamma. I find it interesting that more than one member is willing to imply that about themselves in this thread. Honestly, those are hollow words. Anyone capable of such verification would plainly see that a practitioner would need to see it on their own (just as they are implying that they personally have), and that the word of another should lead to knowledge, not declare it outright.

So what are the qualifications for declaring something to be adhammic as opposed to identifying how it has deviated from an interpretation? Does it happen on the level of scholarship or does it require experiential knowledge?

(I'm not attacking you two, I'm just letting you know what you are both implying. If this is too personal, feel free to request I close this thread.)
1. The Buddha says in the suttas that a Stream Enterer (also translated as Ear-Knowledge) attains path by hearing the voice of another (of one who is noble) and with proper attention

2. The Buddha says that the dhamma-vinaya is now the teacher / master since he is gone

3. The Buddha says to remember and master the dhamma-vinaya (sutta/discourses)

Therefore to tell people to not depend on the suttas is definitely adhamma, and literally preventing them from attaining stream entry. The Dhamma is not some vague theory to be glossed over, it is something that needs to be read over and over and over with proper attention as every time you read it with new experiences, you unlock something new. Even after 10+ years of reading suttas, I still learn something new, almost on a daily basis.
Last edited by budo on Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

(continuation)

In DN 29, the Buddha says if anyone adds or removes from the Buddha's teaching, he doesn't see nor understand the dhamma. Therefore to remove or add from the Buddha's teaching is adhamma.

To contradict the Buddha's teaching, is adhamma
“Cunda, to the extent that I am now a teacher who has appeared in the world, I do not see any other teacher who has attained supremacy in terms of gains & supremacy in terms of status equal to what I have. And to the extent that my community or group has appeared in the world, I do not see any other community that has attained supremacy in terms of gains & supremacy in terms of status, equal to what the Saṅgha of monks has.

“If one speaking rightly were to say, ‘a well-expounded, entirely complete, well-proclaimed holy life, consummate in all its aspects, complete in all its aspects, with nothing lacking & nothing in excess,’ he would, speaking rightly, say it of this: ‘a well-expounded, entirely complete, well-proclaimed holy life, consummate in all its aspects, complete in all its aspects, with nothing lacking & nothing in excess.’
“But how would one, speaking rightly, say, ‘Seeing, one doesn’t see’? One speaking rightly, would say just this: ‘Seeing, one doesn’t see.’ And what is it that, ‘seeing, one doesn’t see’? Such a well-expounded, entirely complete, well-proclaimed holy life, consummate in all its aspects, complete in all its aspects, with nothing lacking and nothing in excess: This is what one sees. One doesn’t see, ‘If this were taken away from here, it would become purer.’ One doesn’t see, ‘If this were added here, it would become more complete.’ This is called, ‘seeing, one doesn’t see.’

“Cunda, if one speaking rightly were to say, ‘a well-expounded, entirely complete, well-proclaimed holy life, consummate in all its aspects, complete in all its aspects, with nothing lacking and nothing in excess,’ he would, speaking rightly, say it of this: ‘a well-expounded, entirely complete, well-proclaimed holy life, consummate in all its aspects, complete in all its aspects, with nothing lacking and nothing in excess.’
Therefore anyone who has attained experiential knowledge, will not say to not read nor depend on the suttas!
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

(continuation)

On practicing in line with the Dhamma-Vinaya (suttas)
“There is the case, Cunda, where a teacher is rightly self-awakened, and his Dhamma-Vinaya, is well-proclaimed, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened. A disciple of that Dhamma does not dwell practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully, living in line with the Dhamma, but deviates from it. He is to be told, ‘It is no gain for you, friend, poorly-gained by you, that—when your teacher is rightly self-awakened, and his Dhamma-Vinaya is well-proclaimed, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened—you are one who does not dwell practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully, living in line with the Dhamma, but deviates from it.’ There, Cunda, the teacher is to be praised, the Dhamma is to be praised, but the disciple is to be thus criticized.

“Whoever might say to such a disciple, ‘Come, friend, practice in line with the Dhamma as taught and formulated by your teacher’: The person who urged him, the thing urged, and the person who practiced in line with what was urged would all produce much merit. Why is that? That’s the way it is, Cunda, with a well-proclaimed Dhamma-Vinaya, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened.

“There is the case, Cunda, where a teacher is rightly self-awakened, and his Dhamma-Vinaya, is well-proclaimed, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened. A disciple of that Dhamma dwells practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully, living in line with the Dhamma, and acts to conform to it. He is to be told, ‘It is a gain for you, friend, well-gained by you, that—when your teacher is rightly self-awakened, and his Dhamma-Vinaya is well-proclaimed, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened—you are one who dwells practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully, living in line with the Dhamma, and acts to conform to it.’ There, Cunda, the teacher is to be praised, the Dhamma is to be praised, and the disciple is to be thus praised.

“Whoever might say to such a disciple, ‘Yes, friend, practicing the right way, you will succeed in the right way’: The person who praised him, the thing praised, and the person who, being praised, aroused even greater persistence would all produce much merit. Why is that? That’s the way it is, Cunda, with a well-proclaimed Dhamma-Vinaya, well-expounded, leading out, conducive to calming, expounded by one who is rightly self-awakened.
And how does one dwell in the dhamma, in accordance with the dhamma? Reading suttas and attaining jhanas
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.

"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by SDC »

budo wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:23 pm Therefore to tell people to not depend on the suttas is definitely adhamma, and literally preventing them from attaining stream entry. The Dhamma is not some vague theory to be glossed over, it is something that needs to be read over and over and over with proper attention as every time you read it with new experiences, you unlock something new. Even after 10+ years of reading suttas, I still learn something new, almost on a daily basis.
I have almost zero experience with Ven. Buddhadasa, but in the OP that you quoted it seems that he was saying that it doesn't end with the words in the book, but the application of the words in experience. Nevertheless, the point of this thread is broader.

When it comes to a discrepancy between interpretations, what is indicative of one being adhammic? The prominence of one of those interpretations over another according scholars? Or a verification based on experience?
"As fruits fall from the tree, so people too, both young and old, fall when this body breaks." - Raṭṭhapāla (MN 82)
Pārāpariya | Phussa | Subhā of Jīvaka’s Mango Grove | Kappa
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:04 pm
I have almost zero experience with Ven. Buddhadasa, but in the OP that you quoted it seems that he was saying that it doesn't end with the words in the book, but the application of the words in experience. Nevertheless, the point of this thread is broader.
Buddhadasa said:
Though a person may never have seen or even heard of the Tipitaka, if he carries out detailed investigation every time suffering arises and scorches his mind he can be said to be studying the Tipitaka directly, and far more correctly than people actually in the process of reading it. These may be just caressing the books of the Tipitaka everyday without having any knowledge of the immortal Dhamma, the teaching contained within them.
If someone never heard of the dhamma-vinaya (suttas) and carried out a detailed investigation of suffering that would cause it to cease, they would be classified as a Buddha. So what he is basically saying is "listen to me first, and not the dhamma-vinaya" because they're clearly reading his books if they're reading (and believing) that non-sense advice.

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:04 pm When it comes to a discrepancy between interpretations, what is indicative of one being adhammic? The prominence of one of those interpretations over another according scholars? Or a verification based on experience?
Between interpretations is something different, it's up to the practitioner to find the most accurate interpretation and put it to the test, as I told DNS, most of the major interpretations have minor differences between them, at least for attaining stream entry path (right view, virtue, precepts, etc..), the real issues of interpretation are usually around specific details around jhanas, but these can also be cleared up by reading more suttas which address caveats.

But to tell people to not even read or depend on the dhamma-vinaya (suttas), which would definitely block them from attaining stream entry path, is not only adhamma, but a major demerit and harm to all beings.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

And to add another caveat to SDC's response:
SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:04 pm it seems that he was saying that it doesn't end with the words in the book
It doesn't begin either, as one cannot attain stream-entry path without hearing the True Dhamma from the voice of another (referring to noble ones teaching the dhamma) with proper attention.

So they're not just words in a book, it's the dhamma, which is the Buddha.
Bundokji
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by Bundokji »

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:24 pm So what are the qualifications for declaring something to be adhammic as opposed to identifying how it has deviated from an interpretation? Does it happen on the level of scholarship or does it require experiential knowledge?
I think the qualification is some sort of circular reasoning. It is through equating the dhamma with the suttas, then quoting the suttas to emphasize the importance of the suttas.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:58 pm
SDC wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:24 pm So what are the qualifications for declaring something to be adhammic as opposed to identifying how it has deviated from an interpretation? Does it happen on the level of scholarship or does it require experiential knowledge?
I think the qualification is some sort of circular reasoning. It is through equating the dhamma with the suttas, then quoting the suttas to emphasize the importance of the suttas.
Hold on, so if you're a singleton discoverer (someone who singularly discovers something in the world, and no one else) like Albert Einstein, and you lay out the definition of terms in your thesis (which is equivalent to the suttas), is someone quoting your thesis then using circular reasoning? I don't think you understand what circular reasoning means.
Bundokji
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by Bundokji »

budo wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:05 pm Hold on, so if you're a singleton discoverer (someone who singularly discovers something in the world, and no one else) like Albert Einstein, and you lay out the definition of terms in your thesis (which is equivalent to the suttas), is someone quoting your thesis then using circular reasoning? I don't think you understand what circular reasoning means.
:strawman:

The thesis is not proved/disproved by simply quoting it. If you believe that Einstien's theory is true simply because he said so, then you are involved in circular reasoning. In the context of this thread, you cannot falsify Buddhadasa simply by quoting the suttas unless:

1- You are equating the suttas with the dhamma. If they were the same thing, everyone reads them should be enlightened, but this is obviously not the case.
2- The truth behind the suttas is already well established when in fact they are not in the case of a puthujjana

I think this is why SDC said in the OP:
but declaring something 'adhammic' implies experiential knowledge of what is and what is not Dhamma.
So, unless you have an experiential knowledge that confirms to you beyond doubt that the suttas are true, you are relying on circular reasoning
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: On Verification

Post by budo »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:23 pm
budo wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:05 pm Hold on, so if you're a singleton discoverer (someone who singularly discovers something in the world, and no one else) like Albert Einstein, and you lay out the definition of terms in your thesis (which is equivalent to the suttas), is someone quoting your thesis then using circular reasoning? I don't think you understand what circular reasoning means.
:strawman:


The thesis is not proved/disproved by simply quoting it.
We're not talking about proving, we're talking about what constitutes adhamma, which if you've read a thesis or even a legal contract, the terms are usually defined in the beginning. So "proving" is irrelevant when it comes to who has the authority to define the terms.
If you believe that Einstien's theory is true simply because he said so, then you are involved in circular reasoning.
No, it's not. Believing something without evidence is called faith, not circular reasoning.
In the context of this thread, you cannot falsify Buddhadasa simply by quoting the suttas unless:

1- You are equating the suttas with the dhamma. If they were the same thing, everyone reads them should be enlightened, but this is obviously not the case.
2- The truth behind the suttas is already well established when in fact they are not in the case of a puthujjana
1. I'm not equating the suttas with the dhamma, The Buddha himself is. He laid out the definitions, not me. Which I already quoted above

2. If everyone reads all the suttas in the 4 nikayas with proper attention and contemplation, they should attain stream entry path (I never said full enlightenment). The only difference when the Buddha was alive is that he could quickly know the state of your mind and give you the teaching you needed to hear to unlock that hurdle you were in. Now everyone starts from scratch.
I think this is why SDC said in the OP:
but declaring something 'adhammic' implies experiential knowledge of what is and what is not Dhamma.
So, unless you have an experiential knowledge that confirms to you beyond doubt that the suttas are true, you are relying on circular reasoning
That's SDC's definition of adhamma, not the Buddha's.
Bundokji
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by Bundokji »

budo wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:30 pm We're not talking about proving, we're talking about what constitutes adhamma, which if you've read a thesis or even a legal contract, the terms are usually defined in the beginning. So "proving" is irrelevant when it comes to who has the authority to define the terms.
In order to agree on what constitutes adhamma, we should agree on what constitutes dhamma. If the dhamma is a form of true knowledge, then true knowledge is not established by faith nor by authority, but by using our ability to know as properly as possible, such as by avoiding logical fallacies and/or imply certainty when there is none.
No, it's not. Believing something without evidence is called faith, not circular reasoning.
Faith does not constitute evidence. Using faith to make a judgement on Ven. Buddhadasa's teachings (such as calling it adhammic) based on faith does not prove him right or wrong.
1. I'm not equating the suttas with the dhamma, The Buddha himself is. He laid out the definitions, not me. Which I already quoted above
That's an appeal to the authority of the Buddha, which is praiseworthy among Buddhists, but again, it does not prove/disprove that Ven. Buddhadasa's teachings are adhammic. Of course, unless one has experiential knowledge.
2. If everyone reads all the suttas in the 4 nikayas with proper attention and contemplation, they should attain stream entry path (I never said full enlightenment). The only difference when the Buddha was alive is that he could quickly know the state of your mind and give you the teaching you needed to hear to unlock that hurdle you were in. Now everyone starts from scratch.


Asserting things does not make them true. This sounds more like truism than establishing evidence that the venerable's teachings are adhammic
That's SDC's definition of adhamma, not the Buddha's.
I fail to see where SDC provided any definitions of what adhamma is. He simply used simple logic based on your contributions and conclusions, and out of good will, he gave you the chance to explain your position: on what epistemological basis you claimed that Venerable Buddhadasa's teachings are adhammic? So far, you mentioned faith and appealed to the authority of the Buddha which is fine, but i still fail to see how does that prove anything where evidence is concerned.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Post Reply