Critiques of the Buddhadhamma

[Ceisiwr]

You did claim to be an Arahant not too long ago.

That was at the time that I was under the impression that Arahantship and Nibbana were the same thing. In the moment that I realized that this isn't the case, I immediately corrected this.

Glad to see you no longer claim to be an Arahant.

[PeterC86]

Glad to see you no longer claim to be an Arahant, which we all knew.

I had to look it up, but I already did this some time ago viewtopic.php?p=503896#p503896,

Exactly one day after me at one time mentioning being an Arahant viewtopic.php?p=503716#p503716, because another forum user used this term equating it to total liberation, whereby he or she refered to a sutta. So even before I realized that Nibbana and Arahantship are not the same, I already doubted it.

I can not know before I figure out that Arahantship and Nibbana are not the same, that those are not the same, if they are not the same. So me saying I am an Arahant, as equating it to Nibbana, is and was a false claim, based on a false presupposition, if they are not the same.

If that is what you try to imply.

[Ceisiwr]

…

I think there are still things you need to learn, and that you are still slightly confused about things.

[PeterC86]

…

I think there are still things you need to learn, and that you are still slightly confused about things.

Well, let's consider what might be more important; you stating that without any, let alone substantial, backing, in order to sustain... your faith?

Or the possibility that millions of people are practicing in a way that doesn't lead to Nibbana, while being under the impression that it does? Which could in turn also explain why Buddhism split up in all the different sects in which it did.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, let's consider what might be more important; you stating that without any, let alone substantial, backing, in order to sustain... your faith?

You being mistaken has no bearing either way on my saddha.

Or the possibility that millions of people are practicing in a way that doesn't lead to Nibbana, while being under the impression that it does? Which could in turn also explain why Buddhism split up in all the different sects in which it did.

I don’t think you know the way to Nibbana, much less know of Nibbana. I think you are one of many, both now and in the past, who have overestimated themselves.

[Sam Vara]

Well, let's consider what might be more important; you stating that without any, let alone substantial, backing, in order to sustain... your faith?

Or the possibility that millions of people are practicing in a way that doesn't lead to Nibbana, while being under the impression that it does?

I think the more relevant question is what might be more likely.

[un8-]

…

I think there are still things you need to learn, and that you are still slightly confused about things.

Well, let's consider what might be more important; you stating that without any, let alone substantial, backing, in order to sustain... your faith?

Or the possibility that millions of people are practicing in a way that doesn't lead to Nibbana, while being under the impression that it does? Which could in turn also explain why Buddhism split up in all the different sects in which it did.

For what it's worth the majority of people I'm aware of are relying on ritualistic thinking that one day they will have a mystical experience or an aha moment and then they will be stream enterers, but it's not like that at all.

The closest practitioners of the dhamma I know of, who are not only theoretically correct, but also lived as close to the true dhamma in practice are:

- Ven Nanavimala - read his book http://ven-nyanavimala.buddhasasana.net/
- Ven Nanadipa - https://pathpress.org/the-island-within/

As well Ven. Balangoda Ananda - watch the documentary

If you even want a shot at attaining sotapanna and knowing the true dhamma, I would check out those 3 links.

[PeterC86]

I think the more relevant question is what might be more likely.

Not an open approach, because it bends the mind leaning to what is more favourable; i.e. what is more favourable, gets more likely. In other words, if you favour me being wrong, because it better suits you, you will automatically find that more likely. And likely is not a prerequisite of being true.

The only way someone can find out if what I show is true, is by seriously investigating what I have showed; through walking the opposite way, to see if it leads to Nibbana.

There are two ways I know of how someone can do that; on one's own account, or by reading my book, which doesn't lead to a practice, so you cannot follow me. It only requires that you read it. Anyone can read the book, even if one is following a certain doctrine. Unless someone is not willing to challenge one's own mind. The book can be found through the link below. It is free, just as you are free to read it.

[Sam Vara]

I think the more relevant question is what might be more likely.

Not an open approach, because it bends the mind leaning to what is more favourable;

There's no reason why the mind should "bend" at all. People are capable of making an impartial judgement based on the likelihood of something being the case. Given the sum total of what we know of both, is it more likely that millions of practitioners should be wrong and you right - or vice versa?

i.e. what is more favourable, gets more likely.

Sorry, that's not the case. My winning the lottery might be more favourable, but that does not affect its likelihood. The same applies to the above case of you being right or wrong. It's just a matter of fact, unaffected by preference or favour.

if you favour me being wrong, because it better suits you, you will automatically find that more likely.

Applying this universally, if you favour yourself being right, because it suits you, then you will automatically find that more likely.

The only way someone can find out if what I show is true, is by seriously investigating what I have showed; through walking the opposite way, to see if it leads to Nibbana.

And has anyone here on DW done that? Have they seriously investigated what you have showed, and thereby attained nibbāna? I can't recall many testimonials...

[PeterC86]

I think the more relevant question is what might be more likely.

Not an open approach, because it bends the mind leaning to what is more favourable;

There's no reason why the mind should "bend" at all.

Sir, I will show you that it does,

People are capable of making an impartial judgement based on the likelihood of something being the case. Given the sum total of what we know of both, is it more likely that millions of practitioners should be wrong and you right - or vice versa?

An open mind does not assume knowledge,

i.e. what is more favourable, gets more likely.

Sorry, that's not the case. My winning the lottery might be more favourable, but that does not affect its likelihood. The same applies to the above case of you being right or wrong. It's just a matter of fact, unaffected by preference or favour.

Wether or not the likelihood of something being the case is higher or lower, is not relevant. As I said, something being likely is not a prerequisite for it being true. So the term likely doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but it only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. And because of this, that mind is not occupied with an open approach to the real matter at hand, but it is occupied with what is more favourable, and that is finding support for one's initial point of departure, and in your case, this is the question what is more likely.

if you favour me being wrong, because it better suits you, you will automatically find that more likely.

Applying this universally, if you favour yourself being right, because it suits you, then you will automatically find that more likely.

I don't favour the one or the other.

The only way someone can find out if what I show is true, is by seriously investigating what I have showed; through walking the opposite way, to see if it leads to Nibbana.

And has anyone here on DW done that? Have they seriously investigated what you have showed, and thereby attained nibbāna? I can't recall many testimonials...

I don't meet a lot of open minds here. But I also don't expect that on a Theravada forum. A lot of people who think they have an open mind though. Some people have downloaded it, I can wait, I have time, so I will wait. Now I have enough of these mental gymnastics. Good day sir.

[Sam Vara]

As I said, something being likely is not a prerequisite for it being true. So the term likely doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but it only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. And because of this, that mind is not occupied with an open approach to the real matter at hand, but it is occupied with what is more favourable, and that is finding support for one's initial point of departure, and in your case, this is the question what is more likely.

This is very poor reasoning, I'm afraid. You claim that the term "likely" doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. So there is apparently a valid distinction to be made between a situation being more likely and how it is perceived. What term do we then use for the situation being more likely? Might the term be "likely", or is there another term more suitable?

Nor is there any reason why a mind should not have an "open approach" to a subject. If an open approach were not possible, we should never learn anything that is not favourable, which clearly isn't the case.

I don't favour the one or the other.

So you don't favour outcomes, but everyone else does, eh? You're just pointing out the mental problems that the rest of the world is afflicted by...

[cappuccino]

As I said, something being likely is not a prerequisite for it being true. So the term likely doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but it only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. And because of this, that mind is not occupied with an open approach to the real matter at hand, but it is occupied with what is more favourable, and that is finding support for one's initial point of departure, and in your case, this is the question what is more likely.

[PeterC86]

This is very poor reasoning, I'm afraid. You claim that the term "likely" doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. So there is apparently a valid distinction to be made between a situation being more likely and how it is perceived.

Yes, anything outside the mind cannot be known. And because I can only know my own mind, what I know in my mind, is my own.

What term do we then use for the situation being more likely? Might the term be "likely", or is there another term more suitable?

You can call it anything you want sir.

Nor is there any reason why a mind should not have an "open approach" to a subject. If an open approach were not possible, we should never learn anything that is not favourable, which clearly isn't the case.

Here you state that something can be known. Please prove to me any absolute knowledge.

I don't favour the one or the other.

So you don't favour outcomes, but everyone else does, eh?

In the sense of right and wrong, me; no.

You're just pointing out the mental problems that the rest of the world is afflicted by...

Well, that might explain the state of the world in which it is, indeed perceived from my own mind.

But before you say that this is preposterous, maybe you can do a little thought experiment. Maybe you know that Aristotle said; an educated mind is able to entertain a thought without accepting it. So if you see yourself as an educated mind, maybe you can take my position, just for a short moment, that nothing can ultimately be known, and take a short look at the world.

[Sam Vara]

This is very poor reasoning, I'm afraid. You claim that the term "likely" doesn't refer to a situation being more likely, but only refers to the mind perceiving something as more likely. So there is apparently a valid distinction to be made between a situation being more likely and how it is perceived.

Yes, anything outside the mind cannot be known. And because I can only know my own mind, what I know in my mind, is my own.

This is a good example of a "deepity" - something that appears to be profound and interesting, but turns out to be trivially true on one level but meaningless on another. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Of course, knowing something means that the thing is "in one's mind"; that's analytically and trivially true. But it's not true in the sense that we can know plenty of things which are external to our minds. We can know that Jupiter exists, for example, or where we have left our keys. These things (both involving "likelihood") are the case independent of our minds, in the much more important sense that Jupiter exists even if someone does know know it, and my keys are where they are even if I forget where I left them.

You can call it anything you want sir.

Thanks! I'll call it 'likelihood", then, and say that the likelihood of something happening is independent of a person's estimation of that likelihood. Jupiter is likely to do what it does even if someone doesn't know that. Of course, someone has to make an estimation of the likelihood, but that's the deepity, isn't it?

Here you state that something can be known. Please prove to me any absolute knowledge.

This seems to be more faulty reasoning. There is no requirement that knowledge be "absolute" (whatever that means!). I know that Jupiter exists and where my keys are, without knowing "absolutely".

So if you see yourself as an educated mind, maybe you can take my position, just for a short moment, that nothing can ultimately be known

Do you have "absolute" or "ultimate" knowledge that you attained nibbāna? If so, then some things can ultimately be known. If not, then you are another person on DW who thinks they have attained something when perhaps they haven't.

[PeterC86]

This is a good example of a "deepity" - something that appears to be profound and interesting, but turns out to be trivially true on one level but meaningless on another. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Of course, knowing something means that the thing is "in one's mind"; that's analytically and trivially true. But it's not true in the sense that we can know plenty of things which are external to our minds. We can know that Jupiter exists, for example, or where we have left our keys. These things (both involving "likelihood") are the case independent of our minds, in the much more important sense that Jupiter exists even if someone does know know it, and my keys are where they are even if I forget where I left them.

Are perceptions not part of one's mind? So if you perceive the thing you call Jupiter, is it not in your mind? And how do you really know, without assuming, the moment you forget and not perceive your keys, that they still exist? Yes, if you find them again, they are back. So are the tides, ebbing and flooding.

You can call it anything you want sir.

Thanks! I'll call it 'likelihood", then, and say that the likelihood of something happening is independent of a person's estimation of that likelihood. Jupiter is likely to do what it does even if someone doesn't know that. Of course, someone has to make an estimation of the likelihood, but that's the deepity, isn't it?

Could be sir, I can not verify.

Here you state that something can be known. Please prove to me any absolute knowledge.

This seems to be more faulty reasoning. There is no requirement that knowledge be "absolute" (whatever that means!). I know that Jupiter exists and where my keys are, without knowing "absolutely".

Well, how I use the term absolute, is that this knowledge is there, even if it is not known. Which is in accordance with your understanding, because, and, you say you have this absolute knowledge, because you state that you know Jupiter, even without perceiving it.

So if you see yourself as an educated mind, maybe you can take my position, just for a short moment, that nothing can ultimately be known

Do you have "absolute" or "ultimate" knowledge that you attained nibbāna? If so, then some things can ultimately be known. If not, then you are another person on DW who thinks they have attained something when perhaps they haven't.

Nibbana has no conditions, so it cannot be known. But if I know this, do I not know it? I cannot answer that.