the great rebirth debate

[Coëmgenu]

Identitarian attack warning.

I hope you have fun, DooDoot.

[Ceisiwr]

Identitarian attack warning.

DooDoot criticises identity politics yet has a love of National Socialism. What a mess.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

The Buddha referred to himself in the past. "When I was an unawakened bodhisatta".

Indeed, because the Buddha is asekha and a tathāgata.

Tathāgatas are free from such reckonings born of prolific perception, papañcasaññāsaṅkhā, because they make use of worldly linguistic usages, conventions and designation, being fully aware of their worldly origin, as if they were using a child's language. When an adult uses a child's language, he is not bound by it. Likewise, the Buddhas and arahants do not forget that these are worldly usages. They do not draw any distinction between the relative and the absolute with regard to those concepts. For them, they are merely concepts and designations in worldly usage. That is why the Tathāgatas are said to be free from papañca, that is to say they are nippapañca, whereas the world delights in papañca.

...

Now as to the arahant and the Tathāgata, the world views of both are essentially the same. That is to say, they both have a higher knowledge as well as a full comprehension with regard to the concept of earth, for instance. Pariññātaṃ tassā'ti vadāmi, "I say it has been comprehended by him".

As such, they are not carried away by the implications of the worldlings' grammatical structure. They make use of the worldly usage much in the same way as parents do when they are speaking in their child's language. They are not swept away by it. There is no inner entanglement in the form of imagining. There is no attachment, entanglement and involvement by way of craving, conceit and view, in regard to those concepts.

All this goes to show the immense importance of the Mūlapariyāyasutta. One can understand why this sutta came to be counted as the first among the suttas of the Majjhima Nikāya. It is as if this sutta was intended to serve as the alphabet in deciphering the words used by the Buddha in his sermons delivered in discursive style.

Hence why I referred you to MN1 above, as I assume you are neither asekha nor a tathāgata.

Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

lol really? Criticises identity politics

Identity is contrary to the teachings for Noble Ones. For example, "my past" is an example identity (sakkaya).

sees something worthwhile in National Socialism.

National Socialism was a political orientation for worldlings attempting to rise out of the German poverty & hell of the 1920s. It is strictly mundane and unrelated to Noble Dhamma. Refer to MN 117 if the mundane vs Supramundane is not known.

The Buddha referred to himself in the past. "When I was an unawakened bodhisatta". Using "I did" or "I will" is not I-making.

SN 1.25:

“No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
Though the wise one has transcended the conceived,
He still might say, ‘I speak,’
He might say too, ‘They speak to me.’
Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions.”

The above appeared not the case of the Ceisiwr-Aggregates that appeared to view the past as "self" rather than as mere aggregates.

In summary, the topic is SN 22.79, which Ceisiwr appears to have remained silent on due to imagining he was a beheaded pig or cow in billions of past lives

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

The Buddha referred to himself in the past. "When I was an unawakened bodhisatta". Using "I did" or "I will" is not I-making.

Indeed, because the Buddha is asekha and a tathāgata.

Tathāgatas are free from such reckonings born of prolific perception, papañcasaññāsaṅkhā, because they make use of worldly linguistic usages, conventions and designation, being fully aware of their worldly origin, as if they were using a child's language. When an adult uses a child's language, he is not bound by it. Likewise, the Buddhas and arahants do not forget that these are worldly usages. They do not draw any distinction between the relative and the absolute with regard to those concepts. For them, they are merely concepts and designations in worldly usage. That is why the Tathāgatas are said to be free from papañca, that is to say they are nippapañca, whereas the world delights in papañca.

...

Now as to the arahant and the Tathāgata, the world views of both are essentially the same. That is to say, they both have a higher knowledge as well as a full comprehension with regard to the concept of earth, for instance. Pariññātaṃ tassā'ti vadāmi, "I say it has been comprehended by him".

As such, they are not carried away by the implications of the worldlings' grammatical structure. They make use of the worldly usage much in the same way as parents do when they are speaking in their child's language. They are not swept away by it. There is no inner entanglement in the form of imagining. There is no attachment, entanglement and involvement by way of craving, conceit and view, in regard to those concepts.

All this goes to show the immense importance of the Mūlapariyāyasutta. One can understand why this sutta came to be counted as the first among the suttas of the Majjhima Nikāya. It is as if this sutta was intended to serve as the alphabet in deciphering the words used by the Buddha in his sermons delivered in discursive style.

Hence why I referred you to MN1 above.

Metta,
Paul.

And so is free from all I-making. Until we are awakened we are all I-making, which makes your point rather moot. What we should do is not feed it. Using pronouns is not feeding it. Its simply using language. If I had taken "I" in the past to be really "me" you would have a point, but you can't get any of that from what I wrote just like you can't get it from me simply writing "I went to the shops yesterday and bought some cheese". By stating that I went to the shops you have no idea what is going on in my head, other than I am remembering going to the shops. This is why leaping on the use of pronouns in the past tense is a rather foolish thing to do. The other day you talked about work you did in the past. That doesn't necessarily mean you were "I-making".

[DooDoot]

Until we are awakened we are all I-making

Yes, until we end identifying literally or materialistically with the below:

“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. The flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve been cows, and the flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off as a cow is more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve been buffalo … rams … goats … deer … chickens … pigs … For a long time you’ve been bandits, arrested for raiding villages, highway robbery, or adultery. And the flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off as a bandit is more than the water in the four oceans.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Until we are awakened we are all I-making, which makes your point rather moot. What we should do is not feed it. Using pronouns is not feeding it.

As I said to Coëmgenu above, "It is the identification as [x] and the projecting of that self through time which was the problem, moreso than the pronouns used to communicate it."

It appears you are mired in shadow-boxing due to papanca.

The other day you talked about work you did in the past. That doesn't necessarily mean you were "I-making".

Of course it was. Hence MN1 and what we should endeavour to refrain from.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

As I said to Coëmgenu above, "It is the identification as [x] and the projecting of that self through time which was the problem, moreso than the pronouns used to communicate it."

Which you cannot get from simply reading "I did x in the past". Even if it were the case that every time an unawakened person says "I went to the shops yesterday" they are I-making, it would then be pretty ridiculous to leap on their use of a past-pronoun and accuse them of "I-making" since it can't be helped for that person. It would also make most conversations impossible. So either we start talking like SteRo, which doesn't help anyone, or we accept either A) the use of pronouns in any tense on their own are not indiciative of I-making or B) They are, but this can't be helped for those who are unawakened. Either way, your initial post is still ridiculous.

It appears you are mired in shadow-boxing due to papanca.

There is plenty of papanca being spewed in this thread, and it is not from I (oops, did it again).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

It would also make most conversations impossible.

Perhaps it is not coincidental that animal-talk is discouraged in the Buddha's dispensation.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

It would also make most conversations impossible.

Perhaps it is not coincidental that animal-talk is discouraged in the Buddha's dispensation.

Metta,
Paul.

This has very little to do with what we are talking about, if anything.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

This has very little to do with what we are talking about, if anything.

Just because you cannot discern the significance of something does not mean there is no significance.

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."

I do not read anywhere on that list talk of going to the shops yesterday.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

This has very little to do with what we are talking about, if anything.

Just because you cannot discern the significance of something does not mean there is no significance.

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."

I do not read anywhere on that list talk of going to the shops yesterday.

Metta,
Paul.

It would be a strange thing for monks to shop at Walmart. My example of "I went to the shops yesterday" was about referring to actions that occurred in the past. I believe monks and nuns can talk about their practice and attainments to each other. Replace "I went to the shops" with "I let my sense-restraint slip yesterday" or "I hurt my leg yesterday" even, for something more general.

[BrokenBones]

Besides the pronouns list, maybe we should also have a list of subjects that may be discussed. I don't see this thread fitting into the Buddha's prescribed list.

[Ceisiwr]

Besides the pronouns list, maybe we should also have a list of subjects that may be discussed. I don't see this thread fitting into the Buddha's prescribed list.

Watch those pronouns!

[Ceisiwr]

I ... you .. my ...

Sounds like rebirth. Sounds like recollecting of past abodes.

The Buddha taught the pathway to the end of rebirth. You here in the quoted passage are stuck on the practice of policing peoples' pronoun usage.