non-Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:40 am Everything that has a beginning, has an end, and this end lies in the middle.
Sounds like Hollywood's philosophy on how to make garbage remake movies.
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:45 am
josaphatbarlaam wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:32 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:21 am Someone leading a life, driven by the self, unknowing what lies beyond it,
What do you mean by something lying beyond self? God?
Choice.
Why would choice be beyond the self? Any intelligent person who belives in a self undoubtedly identifies the will as the self; therefore choice is in the self not beyond it.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:07 pm Why would choice be beyond the self? Any intelligent person who belives in a self undoubtedly identifies the will as the self; therefore choice is in the self not beyond it.
Well there we have it, the final battle..

If you have to believe in a self, in order for there to be a choice, then this choice lies in the believe.

And really, one can believe in anything..
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by Spiny Norman »

PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:03 am
josaphatbarlaam wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:07 pm Why would choice be beyond the self? Any intelligent person who belives in a self undoubtedly identifies the will as the self; therefore choice is in the self not beyond it.
Well there we have it, the final battle..

If you have to believe in a self, in order for there to be a choice, then this choice lies in the believe.

And really, one can believe in anything..
If you have a point, please make it clearly.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:06 pm If you have a point, please make it clearly.
Sir, Madam,

I will try to explain in different words what I have tried to show in this topic;

The story in the first post in this topic explains, that someone who is driven by the self, i.e. suffering, will eventually find a way to go beyond it. Anyone who believes that they have found such a way, will establish a Dhamma. Now this Dhamma doesn't need to refer to the Buddhadhamma, it could be any Dhamma; any explanation of the way things are, an understanding of how things are. A Dhamma is trying to disssolve ignorance; find an understanding or solution. So a Dhamma is merely a fabrication out of the desire to know; to leave ignorance behind. In other words, it is a way of trying to escape suffering, an attempt to go beyond it, founded on the experience of suffering, of not understanding the solution.

So a Dhamma is saying that knowledge of the suffering leads to release from it. Which is like saying; I can cessate suffering by means of suffering, or I can cessate desire by means of desire, and so forth. This exactly what Ananda did, as I explained here viewtopic.php?p=649067#p649067. I also explained in that post, how the explanation of Ananda conflicts with other explanations in the Pali Canon on the release of suffering; and that is understanding dependent origination, originating in ignorance.

Seems like a good moment to look at how the experience of suffering comes about. If you would have no knowledge, then you would also have no knowledge of suffering. So the experience of suffering is already based on some kind of knowledge of it. So to understand suffering, we need to find out how knowledge comes about. From epistomology we can gather that assumed knowledge comes about, when a belief in a truth comes about. I.e. the belief that something can be known. So what does a Dhamma generate? The belief in a truth. So someone driven by the self, that is, who believes in a truth, will eventually think that he or she has found that truth. If this truth becomes unshakeable, that is, the belief in it becomes unshakeable.

Back to the story; at some moment, if you got enough people investigating a Dhamma, someone will come along who sees the Dhamma for what it really is. The one who sees this, has gone beyond the self, beyond suffering, beyond belief. So the one who has gone beyond it, realizes, that the solution of suffering, lies in reversing dependent origination, which eventually leads back to not-knowing, but now with the insight that nothing can ultimately be known.

This reversing of dependent origination, as the root cause of suffering, can also be found on multiple places in the Pali Canon, and these conflict with the Noble Eightfold Path, which Ananda set-up, as I explained in the topic which I linked to above. I will not go further in that topic here, as this is a non-Dhamma topic.

So me stating that choice lies beyond the self, was really just a trap, because in order for there to be choice, there has to be something that has knowledge of a choice, that is; the self. And because the self is founded on a belief, one can realize that a choice and the self lies in a belief. But as one can believe in anything, a belief lies beyond the self; outside knowledge. Because knowledge only comes about when there is a coming together of belief and truth.

So the point is; that there is no point, as nothing can ultimately be known. But the Dhamma was necessary to realize this, so the Dhamma was just as useful as non-Dhamma. So a Dhamma could be seen as a raft;

"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

So a new Buddha will eventually come about if the real teaching of the previous Buddha gets lost. If humans are still there. One could see it as an inevitability.

But in order to get to this understanding of non-understanding, one must realize, that one cannot make the distinction if one is sane or insane, because this would already assume knowledge. And someone who believes that he or she is sane, might eventually establish a Dhamma, and believe he or she is the sanest out there; a saint.

In this sense, we might be up for the dawn of a new era, or maybe this will all get lost.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by Spiny Norman »

PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:06 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:06 pm If you have a point, please make it clearly.
Sir, Madam,

I will try to explain in different words what I have tried to show in this topic;

The story in the first post in this topic explains, that someone who is driven by the self, i.e. suffering, will eventually find a way to go beyond it. Anyone who believes that they have found such a way, will establish a Dhamma. Now this Dhamma doesn't need to refer to the Buddhadhamma, it could be any Dhamma; any explanation of the way things are, an understanding of how things are. A Dhamma is trying to disssolve ignorance; find an understanding or solution. So a Dhamma is merely a fabrication out of the desire to know; to leave ignorance behind. In other words, it is a way of trying to escape suffering, an attempt to go beyond it, founded on the experience of suffering, of not understanding the solution.

So a Dhamma is saying that knowledge of the suffering leads to release from it. Which is like saying; I can cessate suffering by means of suffering, or I can cessate desire by means of desire, and so forth. This exactly what Ananda did, as I explained here viewtopic.php?p=649067#p649067. I also explained in that post, how the explanation of Ananda conflicts with other explanations in the Pali Canon on the release of suffering; and that is understanding dependent origination, originating in ignorance.

Seems like a good moment to look at how the experience of suffering comes about. If you would have no knowledge, then you would also have no knowledge of suffering. So the experience of suffering is already based on some kind of knowledge of it. So to understand suffering, we need to find out how knowledge comes about. From epistomology we can gather that assumed knowledge comes about, when a belief in a truth comes about. I.e. the belief that something can be known. So what does a Dhamma generate? The belief in a truth. So someone driven by the self, that is, who believes in a truth, will eventually think that he or she has found that truth. If this truth becomes unshakeable, that is, the belief in it becomes unshakeable.

Back to the story; at some moment, if you got enough people investigating a Dhamma, someone will come along who sees the Dhamma for what it really is. The one who sees this, has gone beyond the self, beyond suffering, beyond belief. So the one who has gone beyond it, realizes, that the solution of suffering, lies in reversing dependent origination, which eventually leads back to not-knowing, but now with the insight that nothing can ultimately be known.

This reversing of dependent origination, as the root cause of suffering, can also be found on multiple places in the Pali Canon, and these conflict with the Noble Eightfold Path, which Ananda set-up, as I explained in the topic which I linked to above. I will not go further in that topic here, as this is a non-Dhamma topic.

So me stating that choice lies beyond the self, was really just a trap, because in order for there to be choice, there has to be something that has knowledge of a choice, that is; the self. And because the self is founded on a belief, one can realize that a choice and the self lies in a belief. But as one can believe in anything, a belief lies beyond the self; outside knowledge. Because knowledge only comes about when there is a coming together of belief and truth.

So the point is; that there is no point, as nothing can ultimately be known. But the Dhamma was necessary to realize this, so the Dhamma was just as useful as non-Dhamma. So a Dhamma could be seen as a raft;

"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

So a new Buddha will eventually come about if the real teaching of the previous Buddha gets lost. If humans are still there. One could see it as an inevitability.

But in order to get to this understanding of non-understanding, one must realize, that one cannot make the distinction if one is sane or insane, because this would already assume knowledge. And someone who believes that he or she is sane, might eventually establish a Dhamma, and believe he or she is the sanest out there; a saint.

In this sense, we might be up for the dawn of a new era, or maybe this will all get lost.
I have no idea what you're talking about. :shrug:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:15 pm I have no idea what you're talking about. :shrug:
I can't help you or anyone else, either you get it or you don't. I can't find easier words to explain this.

Maybe if someone explained, which segment they do not understand, I can go into more detail.

Have a nice evening!
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by SteRo »

Much Ado About Nothing.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

The words came to me, as to how the Dhamma itself will not lead to release, in accordance with the Pali Canon. And in turn, this explanation will lead to release, if it is understood! This is truly a blessful day!

Bear with me;
If someone has a desire, this means that this person is suffering from unsatisfactoriness, whatever the desire is. This won't form a real problem if the desire is food, shelter, etc., because these basic desires are easily fulfilled. In the case of food, the desire for food will lead to food, through which the desire will, temporarily, dissolve, and so the suffering is dissolved. So one will realize that one lives in a continuous cycle of suffering; non-suffering; suffering; non-suffering; etc. If life becomes more complex, suffering will increase; the more and bigger the desires, the more the suffering.

At some point, someone will get the idea; well this suffering sucks, let me try to find a way to ultimately release myself of it. Well now it becomes a problem, because this person might realize that it is desire that causes suffering. So 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 here; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html So one creates a desire to abandon desire, in which case you create the suffering from desire itself. You will then not only suffer from, let's say, the desire for intercourse, but also from the desire of the desire to have intercourse! You can call this new desire 'persistence,' but it is still a desire.

So one continues on the quest to figure out where one's suffering comes from, which means that one creates a desire to desire to abandon desire. Which in turn will create the suffering from the desire to desire. 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 desire of the 'persistence' of the desire to have intercourse! You can call this new desire 'intent,' but it is still a desire.

This cycle can continue endlessly.

Of course, the increase of suffering, as explained above, may lead to the abandoning of that initial desire, through which the chain of suffering behind it is dissolved. So 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, one needs to intake food, take a dump, etc. So by following such a Dhamma, one becomes a shell of a human, consumed by suffering. Every time a desire rises, 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, also realizes that one is ignorant about the true cause of suffering, as one's suffering will not dissolve completely, but only diminish by the abandoning of desire, this one will try to find the root cause of desire. Which will lead to dependent origination. Now 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 has to let 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.

"Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

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, because this knowledge has a prerequisite;

“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.”


https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_23.html
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:35 pm I can't help you or anyone else, either you get it or you don't. I can't find easier words to explain this.
You have nothing to explain is the problem. Your doctrine, whether you call it dhamma or non-dhamma, or whatever, is nothing more than secular buddhism. You're not saying anything different than them. All they say is "there is no self" and that's all you say. There is nothing unique to your doctrine whatsoever.
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by un8- »

PeterC86 wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:12 pm And I say diminish, because it will not lead to the release of all suffering while living, as in order to live, one needs to intake food, take a dump, etc. So by following such a Dhamma, one becomes a shell of a human, consumed by suffering. Every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed.

I think your interpretation is flawed here. Desire for food or anything isn't necessarily tanha, which is the real problem, and the cause of suffering.

You're equating desire with tanha which is wrong. I recommend reading this essay to learn and discern the difference between desire and tanha https://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesa ... d-craving/

Furthermore not everything is kama (desire), kama is specifically your thoughts. So it is your thoughts that make objects sensous, not the objects themselves.

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
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: non-Dhamma

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:31 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:12 pm And I say diminish, because it will not lead to the release of all suffering while living, as in order to live, one needs to intake food, take a dump, etc. So by following such a Dhamma, one becomes a shell of a human, consumed by suffering. Every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed.

I think your interpretation is flawed here. Desire for food or anything isn't necessarily tanha, which is the real problem, and the cause of suffering.

You're equating desire with tanha which is wrong. I recommend reading this essay to learn and discern the difference between desire and tanha https://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesa ... d-craving/

Furthermore not everything is kama (desire), kama is specifically your thoughts. So it is your thoughts that make objects sensous, not the objects themselves.
That's a good point. The translators are trying so hard to avoid terminology that sounds "religious" that they use terminology that is useless or wrong. Desire, craving...it should be "lust." But the denial that its a "religion" goes so far as to deny its an "ancient philoshopy" too(!) because all ancient philosophies are "religious" in nature; so they pretend its some kind of "modern science" and try to use "clinical" terminology. But that works against anyone understanding what they read.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:25 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:35 pm I can't help you or anyone else, either you get it or you don't. I can't find easier words to explain this.
You have nothing to explain is the problem.
Indeed I haven't, but that seems to be your problem.
Your doctrine, whether you call it dhamma or non-dhamma, or whatever, is nothing more than secular buddhism. You're not saying anything different than them. All they say is "there is no self" and that's all you say. There is nothing unique to your doctrine whatsoever.
Dear sir, madam, what I say is not a doctrine, and indeed could be seen as secular Buddhism. I do not believe in anything, nor something supernatural. I treat Buddhism as an applied philosophy without dogmatism, and not as a religion. And without dogmatism, I also mean that I don't see it pointing to any truth beyond suffering. If it would point to some transcending truth, then it would be a mere religion, and that would, in my humble opinion, be a major downgrade from an applied philosophy without dogmatism.

Indeed there is nothing unique to what I say, as I only point to dependent origination, just as the Pali Canon.

So I don't know what you are doing on this forum, maybe you are looking for a religion, but in that case, I would look somewhere else. Its non of my concern though.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:31 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:12 pm And I say diminish, because it will not lead to the release of all suffering while living, as in order to live, one needs to intake food, take a dump, etc. So by following such a Dhamma, one becomes a shell of a human, consumed by suffering. Every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed.

I think your interpretation is flawed here. Desire for food or anything isn't necessarily tanha, which is the real problem, and the cause of suffering.
Irrelevant, as I only named food to show that one cannot live without desires. And I stated that; every time a desire rises, one will see it as suffering, to such an extent as to which this Dhamma is followed.

So you got hung up by me mentioning food, while forgoing my whole post. I will continue this thread here, viewtopic.php?p=650128#p650128 and will respond to your other post there.
Last edited by PeterC86 on Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: non-Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:31 am That's a good point. The translators are trying so hard to avoid terminology that sounds "religious" that they use terminology that is useless or wrong. Desire, craving...it should be "lust." But the denial that its a "religion" goes so far as to deny its an "ancient philoshopy" too(!) because all ancient philosophies are "religious" in nature; so they pretend its some kind of "modern science" and try to use "clinical" terminology. But that works against anyone understanding what they read.
Irrelevant, because even the terms 'religion', 'philosophy', 'religious', and what these terms point to, are all of dependent origination.

Buddhism will be what you want it to be; if you want Buddhism to be a religion, then it is your desire to see it as a religion, and it will be your religion.

But if you somehow want to reinforce your own beliefs, or convince other people of your views, about Buddhism on this forum, by trying to somehow debunk my posts, while pointing towards religion, I suggest you look for another target. This thread will go further here; viewtopic.php?p=650128#p650128 and I already replied on your post there, but maybe you want to continue your suffering...
Post Reply