OK then. Anyway, clearly I (and whoever it was aimed at) would be foolish to take any notice of such random pronouncements... .retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:54 am Greetings,
Who knows, I wasn't even thinking about you.
Mike
OK then. Anyway, clearly I (and whoever it was aimed at) would be foolish to take any notice of such random pronouncements... .retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:54 am Greetings,
Who knows, I wasn't even thinking about you.
It was not "aimed" at anybody, any more than discussion of gravity or astronomical orbits on a Physics forum would be "aimed" at anybody.
Actually, it's quite on-topic.
To which I replied.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:15 pm Perhaps the solution is as I prefaced this response - namely, to see the relationships as structural rather than temporal? Idappaccayatā is, so why not paticcasamuppada? Even then, one would probably have to commit to certain definitions...
And you replied:mikenz66 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:48 pm Perhaps the solution is that understanding comes from knowledge from experience, not from committing to definitions. Those definitions are obviously helpful in walking the path, but they are clearly not the goal. When something seems inconsistent with current understanding there are a number of approaches, including rejecting that which seems inconsistent, working harder on resolving the apparent inconsistency, or putting the inconsistency aside for a time. Which approach is appropriate in particular cases will vary, of course.
I disagree with this. In my view keeping an open mind and investigating apparent inconsistencies is a sensible approach (in any area of investigation). The exact definitions of these words you're quoting is a matter of debate (obviously, otherwise there would not be so many of these posts...).retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:55 pm Moreover, if one does not know what a word means and how it's being used, and instead applies some sort of amorphous and ambiguous approach to the definition of that word, one can remain muddle-headed and plaster over the inconsistencies and grey spots in their understanding. As above, I don't believe approach #1 (now in another topic) can be justified by recourse to the suttas - though I welcome anyone to try.
That may be true of various sects' Abhidharmas and Commentaries, but I am yet to see any evidence that it is true of the Suttas, least of all because they don't teach "mind moments".mikenz66 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:16 am Regarding approach #1 that you refer to, it may be relevant that the various suttas, abhidhammas, and commentaries of various schools appear to have had both multi-lifetime and single-mind-moment interpretations:
viewtopic.php?t=30940
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Bhik ... _Truth.htmretrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:34 am Greetings,
That may be true of various sects' Abhidharmas and Commentaries, but I am yet to see any evidence that it is true of the Suttas, least of all because they don't teach "mind moments".mikenz66 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:16 am Regarding approach #1 that you refer to, it may be relevant that the various suttas, abhidhammas, and commentaries of various schools appear to have had both multi-lifetime and single-mind-moment interpretations:
viewtopic.php?t=30940
It's been a while since I've read Buddhadasa's Practical Dependent Origination but I don't recall him endorsing mind-moments either.
Metta,
Paul.
In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of the idea of "I" in one form or another is called a "birth." Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day. As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me", and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb.
"The Concept of 'Dhamma' in Thai Buddhism: A Study in the Thought of Vajiranana and Buddhadasa" (1985)In a famous lecture in 1971 Buddhadasa condemned contemporary Abhidhamma studies in Thailand for overemphasizing the sacred and supernatural, for packaging themselves as “consumer goods”, and for leading their supporters into “delusion and addiction”
I wonder if the man in the street understands the arising and vanishing mentioned in the sutta below.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:17 am I suspect he meant this in the way a "man of the street" would understand and interpret it, rather than in the technical way an Abhidhammika would interpret it, but thanks for sharing nonetheless.
Metta,
Paul.
[the ] maxim of the arahants..
Impermanent are all formations;
Their nature is to arise and vanish.
Having arisen, they cease:
Their appeasement is blissful.’”
”Na tvaṁ bāle pajānāsi,
5.2
yathā arahataṁ vaco;
5.3
Aniccā sabbasaṅkhārā,
Variant: sabbasaṅkhārā → sabbe saṅkhārā (bj, sya-all, km)
5.4
uppādavayadhammino;
5.5
Uppajjitvā nirujjhanti,
5.6
tesaṁ vūpasamo sukho’”ti.
I was (fruitlessly) browsing an old audio lecture just now searching for his view of any distinction between anatta & sunnata and he did have a discussion about 'sabhava' (from Abhidhamma). Buddhadasa actually did use Abhidhamma when it suited him and also commentary occasionally. His major (but terrible) book on Anapanasati was largely compiled from the Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, Paṭisambhidāmagga & Anapanasati commentary. He at times followed Buddhaghosa's definition of words, such as "mannusa" ("human") meaning 'high minded.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:17 am "Buddhadasa utilizes the Sutta and the Vinaya material but not the Abhidhamma."
I was only referring to "sabhava". Buddhadasa always spoke about "sabhava dhamma" ("nature") but i imagine he used other Abhidhamma.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:04 am In the event you have a link or a transcript that would be useful as it would indicate the 1985 essay is in error.
Interesting that this arising and vanishing, something so matter of fact, is called the 'Maxim of the arahats'.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:51 am Greetings,
The man on the street would likely understand it as written, without Abhidhamma-izing it. Ditto with Buddhadasa's quote above.
When people say things like "live for the moment", "taking the day moment by moment" or "it was a very special moment", they're not talking about some infinitesimal citta that is classified as an "ultimate reality". Only an Abhidhammika would reify a moment in such a way... no one else talks or thinks like that.
Metta,
Paul.
Similarly, no one would understand "arising and vanishing" as the virtually instanteous flicker between non-existence, existence and non-existence of a reified, atomized, infinitesimal paramattha dhamma unless they were an Abhidhammika or a meditation teacher who interpreted the Dhamma via the commentaries. The arising and vanishing is explained by The Buddha via idappaccayatā, not Abhidhamma - see SN. 12.15...
Therefore, I'm not sure why you keep on bringing up things that mean one thing to Abhidhammikas and something different to virtually every other person on the planet. What is the significance? All you're doing is reinterpreting Suttas through an Abhidhammic lens, which the Buddha never did, nor taught. I see little merit or on topic relevance in that. Indeed, the Buddha might well have a few words to say about such a fixation on the polarity of existence and non-existence - see again SN 12.15.He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
The Buddha taught a middle between existence and non-existence, not a manic oscillation between the two.By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Indeed, the kind of Existence/Non-Existence the likes of which the Chāndogyopaniṣad et al. and annihilationists were concerned with.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:46 am Indeed, the Buddha might have a few words to say about such a fixation on the polarity of existence and non-existence.