Is Duality, a necessary evil?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 14747
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by SarathW »

Is Duality, a necessary evil?
Buddha said not to be disturbed by the eight worldly conditions.
"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It appears that without the eight worldly conditions (duality) this world will not exist.
Does that mean we should not make any effort to make our lives better, because any improvement will be off set by a reduction in quality of our lives.
Did Buddha say, we should only strive for Nibbana any thing else is fruitless effort?
Is it possible for Nibbana to exist without Samsara?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:50 am
Is it possible for Nibbana to exist without Samsara?
Yes. Nāgārjuna is demonstrably wrong. The Buddha was criticising the "sarvaṃ asti" of the Upanishads, not all notions of existence and non-existence in of themselves:
“1.4.10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman. It knew only itself
(atmanam): "I am Brahman!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of
the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the
case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the
seer Vamadeva began:-

I was Manu and the sun (surya)!

This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahman!" becomes this
All
; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he
becomes their self (atman).

So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is
one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the
gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man,
even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal
is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is
not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.
1.4.11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman, one only.”
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. ‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme”
Kaccānagotta Sutta

Nibbāna is the cessation of all conditioned phenomena. It exists as an unchanging, permanent and absolutely endless dhamma. It is not samsara correctly cognised. It is cognised when the 6 sense bases and nāmarūpa fade away, thus revealing the one unconditioned dhamma that is separate from samsara. It exists right now, we just can't "see" it. Unlike the Upanishads there is no Brahman/Atman/Universal consciousness left when nāmarūpa fades away. There is only nibbāna.

You ask if duality is a necessary evil? Fundamentally a duality is the very basis of our salvation.

"If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
pegembara
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by pegembara »

SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:50 am Is Duality, a necessary evil?
Buddha said not to be disturbed by the eight worldly conditions.
"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It appears that without the eight worldly conditions (duality) this world will not exist.
Does that mean we should not make any effort to make our lives better, because any improvement will be off set by a reduction in quality of our lives.
Did Buddha say, we should only strive for Nibbana any thing else is fruitless effort?
Is it possible for Nibbana to exist without Samsara?
Without samsara, an "escape" is not possible!
No birth, no death
Without gain, there is no loss... NO GAIN, NO PAIN
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
The world very much continues to exist. Improvement in worldly conditions is still desirable and worth striving for.
You don't stop eating just because you will become hungry again.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

pegembara wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:32 am
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
Where is that quote from?
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
pegembara
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by pegembara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:24 am
pegembara wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:32 am
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
Where is that quote from?
Lokavipatti Sutta: The Failings of the World
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

pegembara wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:50 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:24 am
pegembara wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:32 am
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
Where is that quote from?
Lokavipatti Sutta: The Failings of the World
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Thank you.
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
SteRo
Posts: 3568
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by SteRo »

SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:50 am Is Duality, a necessary evil?
No. You may have positive thoughts and negative thoughts. And with right resolve you cultivate the right ones. This is how duality is a necessary good.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:48 am
SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:50 am
Is it possible for Nibbana to exist without Samsara?
Yes. Nāgārjuna is demonstrably wrong.
[...]
It is not samsara correctly cognised.
Misunderstood Nagarjuna.
Mulamadhyamakakarika
Chapter 25: On Nirvana

(An opponent argues)
1. If everything is empty, there can be no arising or passing away; Therefore, by what abandonment, by what cessation can nirvana be expected?

(Nagarjuna replies:)
2. (It is only) if everything is not empty that there can be no arising or passing away (and that one can ask): by what abandonment, by what cessation can nirvana be expected?
3. This is said about nirvana: no abandonment, no attainment, no annihilation, no eternality, no cessation, no arising.
4. Nirvana is not a thing, for then it would be characterized by old age and death, for no thing is free from old age and death.
5. And if nirvana were a thing, then it would be karmically for no thing anywhere has ever been found not to be karmically constituted.
6. And if nirvana were a thing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent thing has ever been found.
7. If nirvana is not a thing, can it be that it is a "nonthing"? (No, because) wherever there is no thing, neither can there be a nonthing.
8. And if nirvana were a nonthing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent nonthing has ever been found.
9. The state of moving restlessly to and fro (in samsara) is dependent and conditioned; independent and unconditioned, it is said to be nirvana.
10. The Buddha said that both existence and freedom from existence are abandoned. Therefore is is fitting to say that nivana is not a thing and not a nonthing.
11. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, liberation would also be both a thing and a nonthing, but that does not make sense.
12. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, it would not be independent (of other things), for both (things and nonthings) are dependent.
13. And how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Nirvana is not karmically constituted, but things and nonthings are.
14. (And anyhow), how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Like light and darkness, these two are opposites and cannot both exist in the same place.
15. Only if things and nonthings are established can the proposition "Nirvana is neither a thing nor a nonthing" be established.
16. But how could it be asserted that nirvana was found to be "neither a thing nor a nonthing"?
17. It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
18. Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
19. There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
20. The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.
21. Views about such things as the finitude or infinitude of the state coming after death, are related to the issue of nirvana having beginning and ending limits.
22. Given that all elements of reality are empty, what is infinite? What is finite? What is both finite and infinite? What is neither finite nor infinite?
23. What is just this? What is that other? What is eternal? What is noneternal? What is both eternal and noneternal? What is neither eternal nor noneternal?
24. Ceasing to fancy everything and falsely to imagine it as real is good; nowhere did the Buddha ever teach any such element of reality.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:03 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:48 am
SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:50 am
Is it possible for Nibbana to exist without Samsara?
Yes. Nāgārjuna is demonstrably wrong.
[...]
It is not samsara correctly cognised.
Misunderstood Nagarjuna.
Mulamadhyamakakarika
Chapter 25: On Nirvana

(An opponent argues)
1. If everything is empty, there can be no arising or passing away; Therefore, by what abandonment, by what cessation can nirvana be expected?

(Nagarjuna replies:)

2. (It is only) if everything is not empty that there can be no arising or passing away (and that one can ask): by what abandonment, by what cessation can nirvana be expected?
3. This is said about nirvana: no abandonment, no attainment, no annihilation, no eternality, no cessation, no arising.
4. Nirvana is not a thing, for then it would be characterized by old age and death, for no thing is free from old age and death.
5. And if nirvana were a thing, then it would be karmically for no thing anywhere has ever been found not to be karmically constituted.
6. And if nirvana were a thing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent thing has ever been found.
7. If nirvana is not a thing, can it be that it is a "nonthing"? (No, because) wherever there is no thing, neither can there be a nonthing.
8. And if nirvana were a nonthing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent nonthing has ever been found.
9. The state of moving restlessly to and fro (in samsara) is dependent and conditioned; independent and unconditioned, it is said to be nirvana.
10. The Buddha said that both existence and freedom from existence are abandoned. Therefore is is fitting to say that nivana is not a thing and not a nonthing.
11. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, liberation would also be both a thing and a nonthing, but that does not make sense.
12. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, it would not be independent (of other things), for both (things and nonthings) are dependent.
13. And how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Nirvana is not karmically constituted, but things and nonthings are.
14. (And anyhow), how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Like light and darkness, these two are opposites and cannot both exist in the same place.
15. Only if things and nonthings are established can the proposition "Nirvana is neither a thing nor a nonthing" be established.
16. But how could it be asserted that nirvana was found to be "neither a thing nor a nonthing"?
17. It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
18. Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
19. There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
20. The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.
21. Views about such things as the finitude or infinitude of the state coming after death, are related to the issue of nirvana having beginning and ending limits.
22. Given that all elements of reality are empty, what is infinite? What is finite? What is both finite and infinite? What is neither finite nor infinite?
23. What is just this? What is that other? What is eternal? What is noneternal? What is both eternal and noneternal? What is neither eternal nor noneternal?
24. Ceasing to fancy everything and falsely to imagine it as real is good; nowhere did the Buddha ever teach any such element of reality.
He attacks the substance metaphysics of dravya, yet goes way over the mark beyond what the Buddha did in the Phena sutta. The Buddha denied substance there, but he never denied that form etc exist. Nāgārjuna denied any assent to any form of ontic thinking based on the distorted Agama version of the Kaccānagotta Sutta. Nāgārjuna really is yesterdays news. Its a spiritual dead end. The Buddha was fine with saying that things exist or do not exist. Nāgārjuna is having an argument about an argument that the Buddha never even addressed.
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

2. (It is only) if everything is not empty that there can be no arising or passing away (and that one can ask): by what abandonment, by what cessation can nirvana be expected?
3. This is said about nirvana: no abandonment, no attainment, no annihilation, no eternality, no cessation, no arising.
4. Nirvana is not a thing, for then it would be characterized by old age and death, for no thing is free from old age and death.
5. And if nirvana were a thing, then it would be karmically for no thing anywhere has ever been found not to be karmically constituted.
6. And if nirvana were a thing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent thing has ever been found.
7. If nirvana is not a thing, can it be that it is a "nonthing"? (No, because) wherever there is no thing, neither can there be a nonthing.
8. And if nirvana were a nonthing, how could it not be dependent on other things, for no independent nonthing has ever been found.
9. The state of moving restlessly to and fro (in samsara) is dependent and conditioned; independent and unconditioned, it is said to be nirvana.
10. The Buddha said that both existence and freedom from existence are abandoned. Therefore is is fitting to say that nivana is not a thing and not a nonthing.
11. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, liberation would also be both a thing and a nonthing, but that does not make sense.
12. If nirvana were both a thing and a nonthing, it would not be independent (of other things), for both (things and nonthings) are dependent.
13. And how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Nirvana is not karmically constituted, but things and nonthings are.
14. (And anyhow), how could nirvana be both a thing and a nonthing? Like light and darkness, these two are opposites and cannot both exist in the same place.
15. Only if things and nonthings are established can the proposition "Nirvana is neither a thing nor a nonthing" be established.
16. But how could it be asserted that nirvana was found to be "neither a thing nor a nonthing"?
17. It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
18. Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
19. There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
20. The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.
21. Views about such things as the finitude or infinitude of the state coming after death, are related to the issue of nirvana having beginning and ending limits.
22. Given that all elements of reality are empty, what is infinite? What is finite? What is both finite and infinite? What is neither finite nor infinite?
23. What is just this? What is that other? What is eternal? What is noneternal? What is both eternal and noneternal? What is neither eternal nor noneternal?
24. Ceasing to fancy everything and falsely to imagine it as real is good; nowhere did the Buddha ever teach any such element of reality.
Sounds like a man who has never read DN15 or AN 4.173.
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

18. Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
19. There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
Also, logical leap much! :shock:
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:09 am Nāgārjuna is having an argument about an argument that the Buddha never even addressed.
Nāgārjuna is having an argument about an argument that the others addressed in the name of the Buddha.

From "Questions and Answers" by Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda:
“The five ascetics were given a teaching based on the
ethical middle path, avoiding the two extremes of kāmasukhal-
likānuyoga and attakilamathānuyoga. But the middle path of
right view is found in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by
Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the Theravadins got engrossed with the
Abhidhamma they forgot about it. The Mādhyamikas were alert
enough to give it the attention it deserved.
...

“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna
sermons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was
needed was already found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna
brought to light what was already there but was hidden from
view. Unfortunately his later followers turned it in to a vāda.”

He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven.
Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Śūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ,
yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis tān asādhyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8]
The Victorious Ones have declared that emptiness is the
relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the
view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.
Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat,
anukampam upādāya taṃ namasyāmi gautamaṃ [MK 26.30]
I reverently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion, has
taught the doctrine in order to relinquish all views.
Bhante doesn’t bother translating the verses; the ones
provided above are by David Kalupahana.

“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven.
Nāgārjuna’s sanity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be
understood in the context. He was taking a jab at the
Sarvāstivādins. To be honest, even the others deserve the rebuke,
although they now try to get away by using Sarvāstivāda as an
excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgārjuna must have been, to compose
those verses so elegantly and filling them with so much meaning,
like the Dhammapada verses. It’s quite amazing. This has been
rightly understood by Prof. Kalupahana.”

Prof. David J. Kalupahana is an eminent Sri Lankan
scholar who stirred up another controversy when he portrayed
Ven. Nāgārjuna as a reformist trying to resurrect early Buddhist
teachings. He had been a lecturer during Bhante Ñāṇananda’s
university days as a layman at Peradeniya.

“If there is no substance in anything, what is left is
emptiness. But many people are afraid of words, like śūnyatā.
They want to protect their four.” With that ‘irreverent’ comment
about the four paramattha dhamma–s of the Abhidhamma,
Bhante Ñāṇananda breaks into amused laughter.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9878
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:25 am
But the middle path of
right view is found in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by
Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the Theravadins got engrossed with the
Abhidhamma they forgot about it. The Mādhyamikas were alert
enough to give it the attention it deserved.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. That sutta is attacking the Upanishadic "All exists" or "All does not exist" not ontic claims in of themselves. As for substance, the Buddha denied substance in the Phena sutta but he never denied the existence of consciousness etc :shrug:
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:21 am
18. Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
19. There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
Also, logical leap much! :shock:
We know that the Blessed One, as an Arahant, can't be said to exist or not exist after death.
Since there's no "death" for an Arahant, the Blessed One can't be said to exist or not exist regardless death.

Samsara and nirvana are both empty, in this sense there is no distinction.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Is Duality, a necessary evil?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:30 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:25 am
But the middle path of
right view is found in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by
Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the Theravadins got engrossed with the
Abhidhamma they forgot about it. The Mādhyamikas were alert
enough to give it the attention it deserved.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. That sutta is attacking the Upanishadic "All exists" or "All does not exist" not ontic claims in of themselves. As for substance, the Buddha denied substance in the Phena sutta but he never denied the existence of consciousness etc :shrug:
What is attacked by Nagarjuna are the claims of intrinsic existence.
In Kaccanagotta Sutta, dependent origination is "the middle", and dependent origination is the negation of intrinsic existence.
Last edited by AlexBrains92 on Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
Post Reply