Well I’m certainly not going to stay awake waiting for you to answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.
…and that type of avoidance is a common practice of internet trolling.
Well I’m certainly not going to stay awake waiting for you to answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.
I answered many times
You may have responded with strange two or three word snippets and an occasional link to a sutta, but you didn’t actually answer what I asked.
Okay, here’s an easy one for you, so maybe you won’t find it too hard to answer directly.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:56 pm I'm not saying there is a self
& I'm not saying there is no self
let me put it this way…
Dandapani ("Stick-in-hand") the Sakyan, out roaming & rambling for exercise, also went to the Great Wood. Plunging into the Great Wood, he went to where the Blessed One was under the bilva sapling. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he stood to one side. As he was standing there, he said to the Blessed One, "What is the contemplative's doctrine? What does he proclaim?"
"The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort [of doctrine] where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine, such is what I proclaim."
When this was said, Dandapani the Sakyan — shaking his head, wagging his tongue, raising his eyebrows so that his forehead was wrinkled in three furrows — left, leaning on his stick.
Then, when it was evening, the Blessed One rose from his seclusion and went to the Banyan Park. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he [told the monks what had happened]. When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, what sort of doctrine is it where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its deities, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-?"
"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Or he doesn't assume form to be the self... but he may have a view such as this: 'This self is the same as the cosmos. This I will be after death, constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change.' This eternalist view is a fabrication... Or... he may have a view such as this: 'I would not be, neither would there be what is mine. I will not be, neither will there be what is mine.' This annihilationist view is a fabrication... Or... he may be doubtful & uncertain, having come to no conclusion with regard to the true Dhamma. That doubt, uncertainty, & coming-to-no-conclusion is a fabrication.
"What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by what is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Well, or course, you didn’t answer the question.cappuccino wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:48 pmlet me put it this way…
some people think you should stop thinking or think less
I used to believe that
these days I do not concern myself about it
which solves the problem
(DN 1, Ven Bodhi translation)Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: ‘I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Now, there are recluses and brahmins who are wise, clever, experienced in controversy, who wander about demolishing the views of others with their wisdom. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, they might cross-examine me about my views, press me for reasons and refute my statements. If they should do so, I might not be able to reply. If I could not reply, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.’ Therefore, out of fear and loathing of being cross-examined, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But, when questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: ‘I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.’
[...]
Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: ‘If you ask me whether there is a world beyond—if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.’
Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:
Is there no world beyond?
Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?
Does it concern you at all that you demonstrate the same thought pattern that the Buddha identified in Vacchagotta?cappuccino wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:32 pm Buddha wrote:
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.
Ananda Sutta