Knowledge of ending

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

Mindful of the Terms of Service, and mindful of the Pali Canon,

If one follows the Noble Eightfold Path, one is inclined to think that if one gets released of desire, there is no more suffering; abandoning desire by means of desire. Which Ananda explains in SN 51.15. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html So one creates a desire to abandon desire by means of desire, in which case you create the suffering from desire itself; the persistence. You will then not only suffer from, let's say, the desire for intercourse, but also from the persistence of the desire to have intercourse.

One continues to abandon desire by means of desire, which means that one now persists to abandon desire by means of desire. Which in turn will create the suffering from the persisence of desire; the intent. You will then not only suffer from, let's say, the desire for intercourse, but also from the persistence of the desire to have intercourse, and from the intent of the persistence of the desire to have intercourse.

So one continues to abandon desire by means of desire, which means that one now has the intent to persist to abandon desire by means of desire. Now this cycle can continue endlessly, until one abandons an initial desire at the beginning; through which the chain of suffering behind it is dissolved. This will lead a person following this Dhamma to abandon every desire he or she can, through which his or her suffering will diminish. And I say diminish, because it will not lead to the release of all suffering while living, as in order to live, some desires have to remain. So by following such a Dhamma, one becomes consumed by suffering; every time a desire arises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed.

Now the crux is, that if this one, besides practicing this Dhamma, also realizes that one is ignorant about the root cause of suffering, as one's suffering will not dissolve completely, but only diminish by the practice of abandoning of desire by means of desire, this one will try to find the root cause of desire. Which in turn will lead to Dependent Origination. But the problem of practicing following the Noble Eightfold Path, is, that it does not go together with understanding Dependent Origination. One cannot abandon desire by means of desire, while at the same time trying to abandon desire by means of ignorance.

That is the point where one has to let go of the raft. One lets go of the raft, because one realizes, or not, that suffering is not completely dissolved by means of desire, although it has brought one so far; to get the insight that it is ignorance that is the root cause of desire and suffering.

"Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

If this letting go of the raft is achieved, one can continue with the quest to dissolve ignorance. Now if ignorance leads to suffering, then one knows that it is ignorance that leads to suffering. So one can reverse the chain of Dependent Origination, because this knowledge has a prerequisite, as we can read in SN 12.23; https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_23.html

“The knowledge of ending in the presence of ending has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is the prerequisite for the knowledge of ending? Release, it should be said. Release has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is its prerequisite? Dispassion.… Disenchantment.… Knowledge & vision of things as they have come to be.… Concentration.… Pleasure.… Serenity.… Rapture.… Joy.… Conviction.… Stress.… Birth.… Becoming.… Clinging.… Craving.… Feeling.… Contact.… The six sense media.… Name-&-form.… Consciousness.… Fabrications.… Fabrications have their prerequisite, I tell you. They are not without a prerequisite. And what is their prerequisite? Ignorance, it should be said.

“Thus fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite,

consciousness has fabrications as its prerequisite,

name-&-form has consciousness as its prerequisite,

the six sense media have name-&-form as their prerequisite,

contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite,

feeling has contact as its prerequisite,

craving has feeling as its prerequisite,

clinging has craving as its prerequisite,

becoming has clinging as its prerequisite,

birth has becoming as its prerequisite,

stress has birth as its prerequisite,

conviction has stress as its prerequisite,

joy has conviction as its prerequisite,

rapture has joy as its prerequisite,

calm has rapture as its prerequisite,

pleasure has calm as its prerequisite,

concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite,

knowledge & vision of things as they have come to be has concentration as its prerequisite,

disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they have come to be as its prerequisite,

dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite,

release has dispassion as its prerequisite,

knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite.”



Please discuss.
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:51 am Mindful of the Terms of Service, and mindful of the Pali Canon,

If one follows the Noble Eightfold Path, one is inclined to think that if one gets released of desire, there is no more suffering; abandoning desire by means of desire. Which Ananda explains in SN 51.15. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html So one creates a desire to abandon desire by means of desire, in which case you create the suffering from desire itself; the persistence. You will then not only suffer from, let's say, the desire for intercourse, but also from the persistence of the desire to have intercourse.
I think you miss the point here. This is not a normal sutta. This is one of the "Ananda makes a Brahmin look stupid" sutta. So the language is subversive.

Observe that in the opening Ananda does not say anything about "abandon desire by means of desire." The Brahmin introduces "abandon desire by means of desire" as a strawman (the Brahmin who himself is a strawman of a Brahmin introduces a strawman to suggest that Ananda teaching "abandon[ing] desire by means of desire") and then Ananda rolls with the strawman and subverts it, by changing the desire in question from sensual desires as they usually would be in these discussions, to instead be the desire to get to nibbana. Now just as the Brahmin went he desired to go to the park abandoned the desire to go to the park by actually going there, so also the one who reaches nibbana abandons the desire to go to nibbana by actually arriving there. Hence, the whole strawman introduced by the strawman is subverted.

In other words, this is not a teaching suttas, i.e. not teaching doctrine. Rather this is a "here is how you strawman a good strawman against a non-buddhist" sutta. This sutta is to teach sophistry in how to confuse an opponent, not to teach dhamma.
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by un8- »

PeterC86 wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:51 am ...
As I wrote in your other thread you are conflating all sensous things with kama, and then you conflate all kama with tanha and this is wrong.

Not all sensual objects are kama (sensual yearning).

There are five varieties of sensuous pleasure.

pañcime bhikkhave kāmaguṇā

Visible objects known via the visual sense…​ tangible objects known via the tactile sense, all of which are likeable, loveable, pleasing, agreeable, connected with sensuous pleasure, and charming

cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā…​ kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantāmanāpā piyarūpā kāmupasaṃhitā rajaniyā.

These however are not sensuous yearnings.

Apica kho bhikkhave nete kāmā

In the [terminology of the] Noble One’s training system they are called the varieties of sensuous pleasure.

kāmaguṇā nāmete ariyassa vinaye vuccanti

The sensuous yearning of a man is his thoughts bound up with attachment.

Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo

The world’s attractive things are not sensuous yearning

Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke

The sensuous yearning of a man is his thoughts bound up with attachment.

Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo

The world’s attractive things remain as they are

Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke

The wise eliminate their hankering for them

Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandan ti.

— A.3.411
The most mentioned sensual yearning mentioned in the Suttas is sex, you see it mentioned everywhere such as lay people vowing celibacy, the entire beginning of anguttara nikaya, etc..
Kāma strongly implies sexual pleasure (mānusake kāme: S.1.9). There is no other object which so overwhelms a man’s mind as a woman, or a woman’s mind, a man (cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhati: A.1.1).
Aside from sex it's
Objects of sensuous pleasure

Objects of sensuous pleasure include:

fancy carriages, earrings (M.1.365)

palaces and female musicians (M.1.504).

fields, property and gold, cattle and horses, slaves, servants, and maids (Sn.v.769).

Heavenly objects of sensuous pleasure includes the company of celestial nymphs (accharā) in the Nandana Grove (M.1.505).

For Wheel-turning monarchs such objects include the seven Treasures (M.3.172).
So food is actually low on the totem pole of Kama.

It's important to know that there's two types of Kama, and the problem is Saṅkapparāgo kāmo which means lustful thoughts, not the sensual objects in the world.

A better word for "fetter" is "obsession", so "lustful obsession" is actually the meaning of the first hindrance, which again for most people is sex.

Moving on to tanha, it's closer to extreme habituation. When something consumes your life so much it becomes who you are, i.e. you become an alcoholic or a sex fiend

Craving is the seamstress. For craving stitches him to this or that state of individual existence and rebirth.

taṇhā sibbanī. Taṇhā hi naṃ sibbati tassa tasseva bhavassa abhinibbattiyā (A.3.400).

When attachment to sensuous pleasure is powerful and unsubdued in him, it is a tie to individual existence in the low plane of existence.

tassa so kāmarāgo thāmagato appaṭivinīto orambhāgiyaṃ saṃyojanaṃ (M.1.433).
You wrote "desire for taking a dump", I doubt there's anyone obsessed so much about feaces that it's their identity, that they constantly think about it, they'd have to be severely mentally ill or maybe a scientist in the field, but even then a doctor or scientist in the field doesn't crave it so much that they want to experience it so badly like a sex or drug addict wants those things so badly.

Taṇhā comes from misperceiving sense impression

Taṇhā arises dependent on sense impression, as follows:

When there is sense impression, craving arises. Craving arises dependent on sense impression

vedanāya kho sati taṇhā hoti vedanāpaccayā taṇhā ti.

— D.2.31

How misperception of sense impression leads to craving is explained in the Sammasa Sutta as follows:

Bhikkhus, whatever ascetics and Brahmanists in the past…​ in the future…​ at present regard that in the world which is agreeable and pleasing

Ye hi ke ci bhikkhave atītamaddhānaṃ…​ anāgatamaddhānaṃ…​ etarahi samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā yaṃ loke piyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ

as lasting

taṃ niccato passanti

as existentially substantial

sukhato passanti

as endowed with personal qualities

attato passanti

as unailing

ārogyato passanti

as free of danger

khemato passanti

they nurture craving

te taṇhaṃ vaḍḍhenti.

— S.2.108-9

Therefore misperception produces taṇhā.

The other cravings such as bhavatanha and vibhavatanha are more subtle but that's another topic and for people who are none-returners to understand.

So I think your fundamental interpretation is flawed and needs revisiting.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by Ontheway »

OP: "If this letting go of the raft is achieved, one can continue with the quest to dissolve ignorance."

No, you will be drown instead. Unless you reach the shore, if not, don't abandon the raft for your own safety.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:44 am I think you miss the point here. This is not a normal sutta. This is one of the "Ananda makes a Brahmin look stupid" sutta. So the language is subversive.

Observe that in the opening Ananda does not say anything about "abandon desire by means of desire." The Brahmin introduces "abandon desire by means of desire" as a strawman (the Brahmin who himself is a strawman of a Brahmin introduces a strawman to suggest that Ananda teaching "abandon[ing] desire by means of desire") and then Ananda rolls with the strawman and subverts it, by changing the desire in question from sensual desires as they usually would be in these discussions, to instead be the desire to get to nibbana. Now just as the Brahmin went he desired to go to the park abandoned the desire to go to the park by actually going there, so also the one who reaches nibbana abandons the desire to go to nibbana by actually arriving there. Hence, the whole strawman introduced by the strawman is subverted.

In other words, this is not a teaching suttas, i.e. not teaching doctrine. Rather this is a "here is how you strawman a good strawman against a non-buddhist" sutta. This sutta is to teach sophistry in how to confuse an opponent, not to teach dhamma.
Oh my... so according to you, Ananda, instead of teaching, is showing us, through subversive language, that the Brahman, who apparently is a strawman, is introducing a strawman to Ananda, although it being exactly what Ananda and the Noble Eightfold Path teach, although it is the Brahman who asks Ananda, and although it is Ananda who introduces the holy life of abandoning desire, but according to you; Ananda just rolls with this, and subverts it somehow, as you say, by changing the desire in question from sensual desire, as they usually would be in these discussions according to you, to instead be the desire to get to Nibbana.

And then you continue with...

"Now just as the Brahmin went he desired to go to the park abandoned the desire to go to the park by actually going there, so also the one who reaches nibbana abandons the desire to go to nibbana by actually arriving there. Hence, the whole strawman introduced by the strawman is subverted."

So what you are saying is, that you will reach Nibbana by abandoning the desire to go to Nibbana, and by actually going there.

Even though in this sutta it is not stated that the Brahman actually went to the park by abandoning the desire to go to the park. Furthermore, the Brahman at the end of the sutta follows what Ananda normally teaches and seeks refuge in the path to Arahantship, and Ananda leads the Brahman to get to that point by following Ananda's line of reasoning. But according to you, in this sutta Ananda doesn't mean that, as here he apparently means the opposite.

So there is no substantiation of anything you explained here in the Sutta, and this is all your interpretation which directly opposes what the sutta says, but you say that this is on purpose by Ananda, because you somehow know this is really what Ananda meant, as you say; "as they usually would be in these discussions."

Now I ask you, where did you gain all this wisdom?

And if you have this wisdom, you must be able to guide us to Nibbana, as your wisdom apparently is higher than what is stated in the suttas. So please explain; how are we to attain Nibbana, just by actually going there, without desiring to go there? For this is all very unclear to me.

Furthermore, non of what you have said actually goes into what I have offered. Instead, you have ignored everything in my post, by merely saying that you think that I miss the point..from which you in the end conclude, and this is where it gets really nasty; that if I follow your logic, that I am apparently strawmanning this sutta, to confuse opponents on how not to teach Dhamma.

The last bit shows how one who believes that they know the truth, will twist and turn things in any imaginable way, that it turns out for them that their belief is right. And they will go so far as to make it seem that the one who points them to this hollow belief, is the bad guy doing wrong, in order to uphold their conviction. Apparently, one can even go so far, as to use the Dhamma as a straw man, by trying to straw man the one who points them to this with it. Such a thing, if it is believed by others, will lead to a split in the Sangha, and leads to sectarianism...
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:52 am
josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:44 am ....
Oh my... so according to you, Ananda, instead of teaching, is showing us, through subversive language, that the Brahman, who apparently is a strawman, is introducing a strawman to Ananda, although it being exactly what Ananda and the Noble Eightfold Path teach, although it is the Brahman who asks Ananda, and although it is Ananda who introduces the holy life of abandoning desire, but according to you; Ananda just rolls with this, and subverts it somehow, as you say, by changing the desire in question from sensual desire, as they usually would be in these discussions according to you, to instead be the desire to get to Nibbana.

And then you continue with...

"Now just as the Brahmin went he desired to go to the park abandoned the desire to go to the park by actually going there, so also the one who reaches nibbana abandons the desire to go to nibbana by actually arriving there. Hence, the whole strawman introduced by the strawman is subverted."
Exactly.
So what you are saying is, that you will reach Nibbana by abandoning the desire to go to Nibbana, and by actually going there.
No. The brahstrawman made the mistake of seeing the desire to get to nibbana as the desire that needs to be adandoned, and Ananda saw (as I do via online forums) that someone with such a misperception will refuse to be corrected (because tgis is no mistake but a purposeful strawman when someone says this) and so Ananda strawmans him back by pretending that indeed the desire to get to nibbana is the desire that must be abandoned, and then points out that by getting there it is abandoned because ypu don't desire to go somewhere anymore once you are there.
Even though in this sutta it is not stated that the Brahman actually went to the park by abandoning the desire to go to the park.
Obviously. Its stated that once he got to the park he abandoned the desire to go to the park because he was at the park. In the same way abandoning the desire to get to nibbana is a non-sequiter for anyone who has not already arrived there. That is Ananda's point.
Furthermore, the Brahman at the end of the sutta follows what Ananda normally teaches and seeks refuge in the path to Arahantship, and Ananda leads the Brahman to get to that point by following Ananda's line of reasoning. But according to you, in this sutta Ananda doesn't mean that, as here he apparently means the opposite.
By reductio ad adsurdam he showed the Brahmin that the desire to be abandoned is not the desire to go to nibbana but is sensual desires.
So there is no substantiation of anything you explained here in the Sutta, and this is all your interpretation which directly opposes what the sutta says, but you say that this is on purpose by Ananda, because you somehow know this is really what Ananda meant, as you say; "as they usually would be in these discussions."

Now I ask you, where did you gain all this wisdom?
Where does anyone get the foolishness of believing that achieving a goal is hampered by desiring to achieve the goal? Surely since the brahmin desired to go to the park that means he would be incapable of getting to the park precisely because he desired to get to the park...right? Per his original logic that should hold. Yet in reality its not the desire to get to the park that would prevent him from getting to the park, but perhaps on the way to the park he saw an attractive woman and was distracted going after her and that could keep him from getting to the park. So the desire to get to the goal doesn't prevent getting to the goal; other desires do.
And if you have this wisdom, you must be able to guide us to Nibbana, as your wisdom apparently is higher than what is stated in the suttas. So please explain; how are we to attain Nibbana, just by actually going there, without desiring to go there? For this is all very unclear to me.
The desire to be let go of is sensual desires not the desite to get to nibbana.
Furthermore, non of what you have said actually goes into what I have offered. Instead, you have ignored everything in my post, by merely saying that you think that I miss the point..from which you in the end conclude, and this is where it gets really nasty; that if I follow your logic, that I am apparently strawmanning this sutta, to confuse opponents on how not to teach Dhamma.
You are confused by the belief that desiring to get to the park makes you forever lost and unable to find the park. So my response was on point to what you wrote.
The last bit shows how one who believes that they know the truth, will twist and turn things in any imaginable way, that it turns out for them that their belief is right. And they will go so far as to make it seem that the one who points them to this hollow belief, is the bad guy doing wrong, in order to uphold their conviction. Apparently, one can even go so far, as to use the Dhamma as a straw man, by trying to straw man the one who points them to this with it. Such a thing, if it is believed by others, will lead to a split in the Sangha, and leads to sectarianism...
The idea that desiring to get to the park prevents you from getting to the park is what is sectarian. Because such an idea is so obviously false that it serves no purpose but to be the differentiating doctrine of a sect.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

un8- wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:19 am As I wrote in your other thread you are conflating all sensous things with kama, and then you conflate all kama with tanha and this is wrong.

Not all sensual objects are kama (sensual yearning).
I will explain it in more words for you. I stated here viewtopic.php?p=650900#p650900 that; every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed. So whatever that Dhamma says what is a desire, and what is not, will be experienced as suffering, or not, to the extent that this Dhamma is followed. What you say is; desire for food is okay, but desire for intercourse is not, because someone wrote that this is not okay and the other is. That is moving the goal post, because in that sense, one could say, oh I am liberated from all my suffering because I don't desire intercourse, and although I desire food, and I am therefore unsatisfied, this is okay, because it is written that this is okay. That is just a dogmatic explanation to justify a certain Dhamma.

And my point is that such a Dhamma doesn't release one from suffering, because the root cause of suffering and desire lies in ignorance.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

Ontheway wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:34 pm OP: "If this letting go of the raft is achieved, one can continue with the quest to dissolve ignorance."

No, you will be drown instead. Unless you reach the shore, if not, don't abandon the raft for your own safety.
Yes, my point being that dependent origination, i.e. ignorance - knowledge of ending, is the shore. Have you read my post besides that sentence?
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:45 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:52 am
josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:44 am ....
Oh my... so according to you, Ananda, instead of teaching, is showing us, through subversive language, that the Brahman, who apparently is a strawman, is introducing a strawman to Ananda, although it being exactly what Ananda and the Noble Eightfold Path teach, although it is the Brahman who asks Ananda, and although it is Ananda who introduces the holy life of abandoning desire, but according to you; Ananda just rolls with this, and subverts it somehow, as you say, by changing the desire in question from sensual desire, as they usually would be in these discussions according to you, to instead be the desire to get to Nibbana.

And then you continue with...

"Now just as the Brahmin went he desired to go to the park abandoned the desire to go to the park by actually going there, so also the one who reaches nibbana abandons the desire to go to nibbana by actually arriving there. Hence, the whole strawman introduced by the strawman is subverted."
Exactly.
So what you are saying is, that you will reach Nibbana by abandoning the desire to go to Nibbana, and by actually going there.
No. The brahstrawman made the mistake of seeing the desire to get to nibbana as the desire that needs to be adandoned, and Ananda saw (as I do via online forums) that someone with such a misperception will refuse to be corrected (because tgis is no mistake but a purposeful strawman when someone says this) and so Ananda strawmans him back by pretending that indeed the desire to get to nibbana is the desire that must be abandoned, and then points out that by getting there it is abandoned because ypu don't desire to go somewhere anymore once you are there.
Where did the brahstrawman made the mistake of seeing the desire to get to nibbana as the desire that needs to be abandoned? As me stating; "so what you are saying..." is only stating that I assume the position that you are saying this. And it is not what the brahman in the sutta pointed to in any indirect or direct way. The brahman just asked Ananda what the aim of the holy life lived under Gotama the contemplative is. After which Ananda says; "Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire." Also nowhere can it be read that Ananda pretends that indeed the desire to get to nibbana is the desire that must be abandoned. And also it remains unclear how one gets to Nibbana by following Ananda's explanation, both by what is stated in the sutta, and your explanation of the sutta.
Even though in this sutta it is not stated that the Brahman actually went to the park by abandoning the desire to go to the park.
Obviously. Its stated that once he got to the park he abandoned the desire to go to the park because he was at the park.
Yes but how did he arrive at the park, just by mere desire? As it is clear to me that the desire to go to the park is abandoned when one has arrived at the park.
In the same way abandoning the desire to get to nibbana is a non-sequiter for anyone who has not already arrived there. That is Ananda's point.
What you are saying here is that Ananda's point is that abandoning the desire to get to nibbana doesn't follow for anyone who has not arrived there. Which seems obvious.
Furthermore, the Brahman at the end of the sutta follows what Ananda normally teaches and seeks refuge in the path to Arahantship, and Ananda leads the Brahman to get to that point by following Ananda's line of reasoning. But according to you, in this sutta Ananda doesn't mean that, as here he apparently means the opposite.
By reductio ad adsurdam he showed the Brahmin that the desire to be abandoned is not the desire to go to nibbana but is sensual desires.
In no way does that follow from what Ananda stated in the sutta. How does the abandoning of sensual desire lead to Nibbana? Ananda just states in the sutta, that if one has a desire, and one is able to reach the object of that desire, then this desire is allayed. Now this may be the case if one wants to go to the park. This however does not mean, in any far stretch, that by abandoning sensual desires one magically attains Nibbana. Ananda just states; "Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed." Which is obvious, but how he gets there doesn't follow from the previous.

You only came to this explanation, because I stated; "so what you are saying is, that you will reach Nibbana by abandoning the desire to go to Nibbana, and by actually going there." For which you have gone to some extent to try and show that it was you explaining the words of Ananda, in such a way, as to that you are explaining the sutta, in trying to prove that Ananda; By reductio ad adsurdam he showed the Brahmin that the desire to be abandoned is not the desire to go to nibbana but is sensual desires.

For which again, no logical explanation has been brought to the conversation.
Now I ask you, where did you gain all this wisdom?
Where does anyone get the foolishness of believing that achieving a goal is hampered by desiring to achieve the goal? Surely since the brahmin desired to go to the park that means he would be incapable of getting to the park precisely because he desired to get to the park...right? Per his original logic that should hold. Yet in reality its not the desire to get to the park that would prevent him from getting to the park, but perhaps on the way to the park he saw an attractive woman and was distracted going after her and that could keep him from getting to the park. So the desire to get to the goal doesn't prevent getting to the goal; other desires do.
So instead of answering where you get your wisdom, as nothing of what you said is stated in the sutta or follows from it, you turn my question around, and replace it with a different question, that you answer yourself. And in this different question you assume that I believe that achieving a goal is hampered by desiring to achieve the goal, because I took the position where I assumed that this is what you were saying, which by no stretch has anything to do what is stated in the sutta.

So still the question of where you get your wisdom remains open.
And if you have this wisdom, you must be able to guide us to Nibbana, as your wisdom apparently is higher than what is stated in the suttas. So please explain; how are we to attain Nibbana, just by actually going there, without desiring to go there? For this is all very unclear to me.
The desire to be let go of is sensual desires not the desite to get to nibbana.
I repeat, this doesn't follow from what is stated in the sutta, and is entirely based on your interpretation. Nor is it clear how abandoning sensual desires will lead to Nibbana.
Furthermore, non of what you have said actually goes into what I have offered. Instead, you have ignored everything in my post, by merely saying that you think that I miss the point..from which you in the end conclude, and this is where it gets really nasty; that if I follow your logic, that I am apparently strawmanning this sutta, to confuse opponents on how not to teach Dhamma.
You are confused by the belief that desiring to get to the park makes you forever lost and unable to find the park. So my response was on point to what you wrote.
Oh so now I am confused all of a sudden by a belief you made up yourself, as I never stated anywhere in this topic that I believe that is the desire to get to Nibbana makes one unable to get to Nibbana. I only assumed the position that I did, by stating; "so what you are saying is..." So your response was on a point I let you to believe that it was my point. And you stated; "This sutta is to teach sophistry in how to confuse an opponent, not to teach dhamma."
The last bit shows how one who believes that they know the truth, will twist and turn things in any imaginable way, that it turns out for them that their belief is right. And they will go so far as to make it seem that the one who points them to this hollow belief, is the bad guy doing wrong, in order to uphold their conviction. Apparently, one can even go so far, as to use the Dhamma as a straw man, by trying to straw man the one who points them to this with it. Such a thing, if it is believed by others, will lead to a split in the Sangha, and leads to sectarianism...
The idea that desiring to get to the park prevents you from getting to the park is what is sectarian. Because such an idea is so obviously false that it serves no purpose but to be the differentiating doctrine of a sect.
Nothing what you have stated in your posts has anything to do with what was actually stated in the sutta, nor did it go into my opening post, or any of my other points that I have raised upon your first and second response, instead you were totally consumed by trying to prove how I somehow strawmanned the sutta, based on my statement; "so what you are saying is..." from which you assumed that this was my belief. So you strawmanned yourself. :)

If you read my opening post again, you can exactly figure out what my position is. All the points that I have raised against your explanation of the sutta are still open, and before you make any attempt to answer them all in a clear way, I will withhold from any further discussion.
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:23 pm Where did the brahstrawman made the mistake of seeing the desire to get to nibbana as the desire that needs to be abandoned?
In Thanissaro's translation that you linked to above its paragraph 7
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
The implication of the phrase "it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire" is itself a suggestion that all desire (including desire to abandone desire) must be abandoned. That is the mistake. And to that mistake Ananda is showing that the final desire is abandoned by being accomplished. I.e. bad desies are to be abandoned by not fulfilling them, but the good desire is abandoned once it is fulfilled.

Hence
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
To get to the park he would have had to abandon any desire that would prevent getting to the park, like the desire to stop and go to the movies on the way there, which would have distracted him for a few hours, then the desire to do this and that, which would make it nightfall before he ever got to the park, if he ever did. But the desire to get to the park, the final desire to be "abandoned" if you want to put it that way, would be abandoned not by not fulfilling it but by it finally being fulfilled, because that desire was the goal all along so is not a desire to be abandoned by not fulfilling it but is the one that is abandoned after it is fulfilled because it is fulfilled.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:13 am
PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:23 pm Where did the brahstrawman made the mistake of seeing the desire to get to nibbana as the desire that needs to be abandoned?
In Thanissaro's translation that you linked to above its paragraph 7
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
The implication of the phrase "it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire" is itself a suggestion that all desire (including desire to abandone desire) must be abandoned.
That implication comes out of your imagination, the brahman only states that "it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire". Furthermore, it is impossible to abandon all desires, including the desire to abandon desire, as how is one supposed to get to that? The sentence starts with; "If that's so", meaning; 'If what you are saying is true' the brahman continues "then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire." In which the brahman states, that what Ananda proposes in the previous paragraph, is trying to abandon desire by means of desire. In the previous paragraph Ananda states;
"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."

After the brahman questioned Ananda's path, Ananda starts explaining, by questioning the brahman;
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"

"Yes, sir."
Of course, when a desire is fulfilled, the desire is allayed. But this says nothing about when a new desire arises, and how to deal with that, because what Ananda failed to explain is how the brahman is supposed to get to the park. But the brahman also failed to ask this to Ananda, after which Ananda just says;
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
So after Ananda explains that; when an arahant reaches arahantship, the desire for the attainment of arahantship is allayed, which seems obvious; the brahman is inclined to believe Ananda in that something has ended; refering to that a particular desire was allayed. After which the brahman commits his life to this path. Although no explanation whatsoever as to how one is supposed to reach the park or arahantship is offered, and nothing is said about how to allay further desires. But you say;
That is the mistake. And to that mistake Ananda is showing that the final desire is abandoned by being accomplished. I.e. bad desies are to be abandoned by not fulfilling them, but the good desire is abandoned once it is fulfilled.
You said, that the brahman implied that all desires need to be abandoned, which he didn't and which is also an impossibility, as I explained above. To which you state that this is a mistake, but it is a mistake you generated, and which doen't follow from the sutta. To which you come to the explanation that Ananda is showing that the final desire is abandoned by being accomplished. So then the arahant, who magically arrived at this arahantship, doesn't have any desires anymore? So the arahant doesn't eat? But then you say that 'bad' desires are to be abandoned, and a 'good' desire is abandoned once it is fulfilled. Here you introduced an assumed 'good' and 'bad'.
Hence
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
To get to the park he would have had to abandon any desire that would prevent getting to the park, like the desire to stop and go to the movies on the way there, which would have distracted him for a few hours, then the desire to do this and that, which would make it nightfall before he ever got to the park, if he ever did. But the desire to get to the park, the final desire to be "abandoned" if you want to put it that way, would be abandoned not by not fulfilling it but by it finally being fulfilled, because that desire was the goal all along so is not a desire to be abandoned by not fulfilling it but is the one that is abandoned after it is fulfilled because it is fulfilled.
So you explain that any desire that obstructs one to the final desire has to be abandoned, and then when one has reached the final desire, this apparent 'good' desire is abandoned because it is fulfilled. In other words, you say that abandoning apparent 'bad' desires leads to the final apparent 'good' desire, which is then abandoned because it is fulfilled. So something which is seen as obstructing to arahantship is seen as an apparent 'bad' desire, which in this case means that all desires that are not that of attaining arahantship, are to be abandoned, like you said; "To get to the park he would have had to abandon any desire that would prevent getting to the park,"

In this sense, only arahantship is seen as 'good', and everything that is not arahantship is seen as 'bad'. And the arahantship is the abandoning of the final desire of trying to attain arahantship, as you explained above, so all other desires are in, or just before, the arahantship allayed.

In such a quest, besides trying to make a distinction between 'good' and 'bad', the objective is to live without desires, to which the brahman said, and to which I came to my opening post; "it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by un8- »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:55 pm
un8- wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:19 am As I wrote in your other thread you are conflating all sensous things with kama, and then you conflate all kama with tanha and this is wrong.

Not all sensual objects are kama (sensual yearning).
I will explain it in more words for you. I stated here viewtopic.php?p=650900#p650900 that; every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed. So whatever that Dhamma says what is a desire, and what is not, will be experienced as suffering, or not, to the extent that this Dhamma is followed. What you say is; desire for food is okay, but desire for intercourse is not, because someone wrote that this is not okay and the other is. That is moving the goal post, because in that sense, one could say, oh I am liberated from all my suffering because I don't desire intercourse, and although I desire food, and I am therefore unsatisfied, this is okay, because it is written that this is okay. That is just a dogmatic explanation to justify a certain Dhamma.

And my point is that such a Dhamma doesn't release one from suffering, because the root cause of suffering and desire lies in ignorance.
I never said desire for food is ok, I said it's low on the totem pole because for most people the largest obsession is sex. You, on the other hand, said that people enjoy the feeling of pooping and that is bad and will be seen aa stressful. I'm telling you that sensual desire refers to obsessions and no one obsesses over pooping and other mild sensual pleasures. The same goes for food, if it's not an obsession it's not a problem. If it causes you to stop your meditation because you can't stop thinking about it, it's an obsession.

This is literally the issue the Buddha had with the extreme ascetics who were still obsessing over food except in the other direction of asceticism, they got angry at the Buddha because he accepted the rice bowl and started eating again.

The point is that obsession is the problem, and not all sensual things are obsessive to people. In short, you went too far.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:10 amIn other words, you say that abandoning apparent 'bad' desires leads to the final apparent 'good' desire, which is then abandoned because it is fulfilled.
So your problem is that you don't believe in a distinction between good and bad?
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

un8- wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:14 pm I never said desire for food is ok, I said it's low on the totem pole because for most people the largest obsession is sex. You, on the other hand, said that people enjoy the feeling of pooping and that is bad and will be seen aa stressful. I'm telling you that sensual desire refers to obsessions and no one obsesses over pooping and other mild sensual pleasures. The same goes for food, if it's not an obsession it's not a problem. If it causes you to stop your meditation because you can't stop thinking about it, it's an obsession.

This is literally the issue the Buddha had with the extreme ascetics who were still obsessing over food except in the other direction of asceticism, they got angry at the Buddha because he accepted the rice bowl and started eating again.

The point is that obsession is the problem, and not all sensual things are obsessive to people. In short, you went too far.
Ah you also got hung up in thinking that abandoning desire by means of desire is going to lead you anywhere, although my opening post explains exactly why it doesn't lead to abandoning suffering, you come with some sutta examples that oppose my opening post, which is obvious, as I made it clear in my opening post that the Noble Eightfold Path does not match with understanding dependent origination. So yes your examples do not coincide with what I explained, because that naturally follows from my opening post, that everything in the Pali Canon pointing towards the Noble Eightfold Path is going to oppose what I explain.

Then I try to make you aware of this in my response, although my opening post was all about this, but you also just ignore my point in my response, and keep hanging up on whether which desire is how high on some totem pole. Although my opening post, and my responses to you, are all about making clear that desires are irrelevant, whether they become an obsession or not, because it is ignorance that is the root cause of suffering; not desire!(!)(!)(!)
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Knowledge of ending

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:38 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:10 amIn other words, you say that abandoning apparent 'bad' desires leads to the final apparent 'good' desire, which is then abandoned because it is fulfilled.
So your problem is that you don't believe in a distinction between good and bad?
Yes, and this is a not a problem because I don't believe in them, but it is a problem because the majority of the world believes in them. And this majority of the world makes up the legislation, they determine the economy, they determine how we look and behave towards other people.

And you know where this problem comes from? Dhammas; people believing they know what is true and what isn't; people believing that they can make the distinction between good and bad, or wholesome and unwholesome, or skillful means and unskillful means...or what have you. Everybody obsessed with 'wanting to know', because knowledge gives power. But if knowledge comes from ignorance, isn't this knowledge not of dependent origination? Yes, but pssst, don't tell this to someone else, because so long as they believe that we know, we have all the power.

So instead of having compassion for each other and growing together, we grow further apart from each other, because everybody is pointing to each other with a Dhamma in their hands. Someone says to another; "It is not that, it is this." And the other says to someone; "No it is not this, it is that." And you ask, "Is this where it is?" And somebody points to you and says "It's his" And you say, "What's mine?"And somebody else says, "Well what is?" And you say, "Oh my God Am I here all alone?"
Post Reply