Frank Yang is DONE!

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
auto
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by auto »

SteRo wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:45 am No I perfectly understood what you said but I committed the fault of deviating from theravada doctrine in the forum section dedicated to theravada doctrine through applying "not self" to goal-setting and affirmation of life which are two aspects inherent in theravada doctrine.
Therefore I have placed my response here in 'connections to other paths' because applying "not self" to theravada doctrine certainly amounts to a path other than theravada path because it's a non-path and the connection to theravada is the concept of "not self".
And I have placed my response in this thread because our new conversation turned out to be just a variant of the conversation we already had earlier in this thread.
Thanks for answering.

For hedonists, buddha is a life killer, because he is sleeping on a lowly bed. Buddha knows another pleasure what is finer, hedonist doesn't know, the hedonist depends on loftiness. Comfortable, luxury bed is just a bed, but for hedonist it is the only bed.
If buddha wants to become a god, he will act like a god whereas he himself doesn't have asavas to become a god, he knows his mind is free of those asavas.
If i say that certain practices are pointless, because they are post birth. God is doing practices what god would do, human does practices what human would do etc.
I don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path, obviously you do still need use your body in daily life thus make kamma what will be experienced.
Other words you got to have something what destroys defilements what would make you to do the things you do, a'la arhant can't have sex.
I refuse to believe that the application of not self is that easy like you propose, Theravada doctrine is not self, Mahayana doctrine is not self, doing push ups is not self.
nmjojola
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by nmjojola »

No dhamma shines in this video, it's just ordinary garden variety manic mysticism. Talented video editor though!
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

auto wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:12 pm ... buddha is ...
I don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path, ...
There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by lojong1 »

SteRo, auto, y'all so cute. Frank Yang would make great wedding vids.
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

lojong1 wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:48 am SteRo, auto, y'all so cute. Frank Yang would make great wedding vids.
:lol: :twothumbsup:
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
auto
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by auto »

SteRo wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:29 am
auto wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:12 pm ... buddha is ...
I don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path, ...
There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path.
Your answer doesn't have any trace of what you answered to. At least try to talk like a normal person, giving reasons to your point you made.
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

auto wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:52 pm
SteRo wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:29 am
auto wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:12 pm ... buddha is ...
I don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path, ...
There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path.
Your answer doesn't have any trace of what you answered to. At least try to talk like a normal person, giving reasons to your point you made.
Reasons? for what? No point has been made. You "don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path". How could it be otherwise? Both, path and non-path are no different from individual sets of aggregates. There are no objects different individuals could look at and make objective assessments.
Therefore non-path has been genuinely expressed with "There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path." and your "buddha is [this or that]" does not apply.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
auto
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by auto »

SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:55 am
auto wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:52 pm
SteRo wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:29 am
There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path.
Your answer doesn't have any trace of what you answered to. At least try to talk like a normal person, giving reasons to your point you made.
Reasons? for what? No point has been made. You "don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path". How could it be otherwise? Both, path and non-path are no different from individual sets of aggregates. There are no objects different individuals could look at and make objective assessments.
Therefore non-path has been genuinely expressed with "There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path." and your "buddha is [this or that]" does not apply.
That is your reasons, thanks for outlining them. You are harboring skepticism, i believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism wrote:In Greece philosophers as early as Xenophanes (c. 570 – c. 475 BC) expressed skeptical views, as did Democritus[6] and a number of Sophists. Gorgias, for example, reputedly argued that nothing exists, that even if there were something we could not know it, and that even if we could know it we could not communicate it.[7] The Heraclitean philosopher Cratylus refused to discuss anything and would merely wriggle his finger, claiming that communication is impossible since meanings are constantly changing.[8] Socrates also had skeptical tendencies, claiming to know nothing worthwhile.[9]
Sure, there are no points made if the premise is doubt about making points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism wrote:More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic
In your case there is no perspective because of sets of khandhas what are individual. Btw, i have no idea what you mean by khandhas, do you mean that the dog is a khandha and you are not dog thus you and the dog can't understand each other, that the taming is just a coincidence of both sides assuming one and the same thing, there never can be understanding, knowledge?
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

auto wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:47 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:55 am
auto wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:52 pm
Your answer doesn't have any trace of what you answered to. At least try to talk like a normal person, giving reasons to your point you made.
Reasons? for what? No point has been made. You "don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path". How could it be otherwise? Both, path and non-path are no different from individual sets of aggregates. There are no objects different individuals could look at and make objective assessments.
Therefore non-path has been genuinely expressed with "There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path." and your "buddha is [this or that]" does not apply.
That is your reasons, thanks for outlining them. You are harboring skepticism, i believe.
On the surface it might look like skepticism. Madhyamaka expressions often have been confused with skepticism.
auto wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:47 pm In your case there is no perspective because of sets of khandhas what are individual. Btw, i have no idea what you mean by khandhas, do you mean that the dog is a khandha and you are not dog thus you and the dog can't understand each other, that the taming is just a coincidence of both sides assuming one and the same thing, there never can be understanding, knowledge?
I am using "aggregates" as a figure of speech. In reality there are no aggregates. It is similar to saying "I" and "you" although there is neither "I" nor "you". "aggregates" is just a means to undermine the sentiment of "person" or "being".
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
auto
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by auto »

SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:36 pm
auto wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:47 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:55 am

Reasons? for what? No point has been made. You "don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path". How could it be otherwise? Both, path and non-path are no different from individual sets of aggregates. There are no objects different individuals could look at and make objective assessments.
Therefore non-path has been genuinely expressed with "There being no perspective nothing "lands". Neither buddha nor beings have a foothold on that non-path." and your "buddha is [this or that]" does not apply.
That is your reasons, thanks for outlining them. You are harboring skepticism, i believe.
On the surface it might look like skepticism. Madhyamaka expressions often have been confused with skepticism.
auto wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:47 pm In your case there is no perspective because of sets of khandhas what are individual. Btw, i have no idea what you mean by khandhas, do you mean that the dog is a khandha and you are not dog thus you and the dog can't understand each other, that the taming is just a coincidence of both sides assuming one and the same thing, there never can be understanding, knowledge?
I am using "aggregates" as a figure of speech. In reality there are no aggregates. It is similar to saying "I" and "you" although there is neither "I" nor "you". "aggregates" is just a means to undermine the sentiment of "person" or "being".
old me would have picked up this "in reality there are no aggregates" but now i need think about it what you mean, it potentially has deep knowledge and backed with terms.

My accusation of skepticism was out of place anyway. I suggest things to get more information out.
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

auto wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:57 pm old me would have picked up this "in reality there are no aggregates" but now i need think about it what you mean, it potentially has deep knowledge and backed with terms.
You shouldn't overrate such statements. No reality is claimed in extreme statements of "is" or "isn't". It is just that language only knows "is" and "isn't" which is why negating or affirming statements are used depending on experiential context.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by cappuccino »

SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:36 pm It is similar to saying "I" and "you" although there is neither "I" nor "you".
Advaita teachers may say this


Buddha was not saying this
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
Art of the 21st Century
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:48 am
SteRo wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:36 pm It is similar to saying "I" and "you" although there is neither "I" nor "you".
Advaita teachers may say this


Buddha was not saying this
Well advaita teachers are claiming something else instead that's why they are extremists. The figure you are calling "buddha" did claim this or that not being self but remained silent whether there is or is not a self which amounts to what I said because my saying "there is neither "I" nor "you"." is a non-implicative negation.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by cappuccino »

SteRo wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:49 am they are extremists. … my saying "there is neither "I" nor "you" is a non-implicative negation.
On Self, No Self, and Not-self

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
Art of the 21st Century
SteRo
Posts: 4440
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Frank Yang is DONE!

Post by SteRo »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:56 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:49 am they are extremists. … my saying "there is neither "I" nor "you" is a non-implicative negation.
On Self, No Self, and Not-self

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Yes he is silent where I apply non-implicative negation which amounts to the same. What can we conclude from this? "the Blessed One" wasn't an analytical madhyamika :lol:
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
Post Reply