Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5120
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by cappuccino »

samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am "Pure logic" leads to nowhere good.
this is flawed logic
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by samseva »

cappuccino wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:03 pm
samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am "Pure logic" leads to nowhere good.
this is flawed logic
Flawed logic? Maybe because you modified my post to suit your argument... I'm sure most would agree (even you) that "papañca leads to nowhere good."

In academia, this is called "academic hishonesty." It is heavely frowned upon and usually leads to disciplinary action (and loss of reputation).

Here is my original (unmodified) post:
samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am "Pure logic" (i.e., papañca) leads to nowhere good.
(I have reported this to staff, BTW.)
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by robertk »

samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:10 pm
cappuccino wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:03 pm
samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am "Pure logic" leads to nowhere good.
this is flawed logic
Flawed logic? Maybe because you modified my post to suit your argument... I'm sure most would agree (even you) that "papañca leads to nowhere good."

In academia, this is called "academic hishonesty." It is heavely frowned upon and usually leads to disciplinary action (and loss of reputation).

Here is my original (unmodified) post:
samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am "Pure logic" (i.e., papañca) leads to nowhere good.
(I have reported this to staff, BTW.)
I saw the report and agree the way "papanca" was omitted by capuccino when quoting you was misleading.

For everyone: I won't remove this little exchange - But let's try to be fair and friendly to each other.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:01 am
cappuccino wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:11 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:45 pm "Basically I've strengthened faith due to following logic"
:goodpost:
That's precisely the opposite of what the OP said.

"Pure logic" (i.e., papañca) leads to nowhere good. It simply leads to a multiplicity of ever-expanding thoughts.




On the contrary:




------------------
Ajahn Suchart Abhijato

Question 5:
  • Do people with good logical/ analytical skills have an advantage in vipassanā meditation?
Tan Ajahn:
  • I think they will, because in vipassanā, we use rationality and logic. We use cause and effect—this thing happened which makes this other thing happen. The Four Noble Truths is logic, the cause and the effect. Our bad feeling arise from our desires. Our bad feelings disappear when we get rid of our desires. And the thing that will help us get rid of our desire is vipassanā, the knowledge of impermanence, stress and anattā. In some ways, people with good rational minds will advance quickly when they arrive at the vipassanā level.
http://www.kammatthana.com/dhamma%20for ... ng%202.pdf

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by samseva »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:21 pm [...]
I said it is the precise opposite of what the OP said—which it is.

And I also said:
samseva wrote:"Pure logic" (i.e., papañca) [...]
Didn't say anything about basic logic... or thinking, or wisdom, or right view—I talked about papañca.

Merriam-Webster wrote: I.e. stands for id est, which means "that is."
[...]
For example, "They live in The Big Apple, i.e., New York City."
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

samseva wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:32 pm ...
Didn't say anything about basic logic... or thinking, or wisdom, or right view—I talked about papañca.
...
Very well, then.




---------------------------------
btw (one of the meanings): The general laws of thought need not necessarily be limited only to papañca, imo.


:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by samseva »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:23 pm Very well, then.
---------------------------------
btw (one of the meanings): The general laws of thought need not necessarily be limited only to papañca, imo.
? ? ?
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

samseva wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:32 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:23 pm Very well, then.
---------------------------------
btw (one of the meanings): The general laws of thought need not necessarily be limited only to papañca, imo.
? ? ?

umm ... sorry, I wish I could untangle that, ... :jumping:

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
tamdrin
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by tamdrin »

zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am So, if we extrapolate certain ideas in the Pali Canon to their (hopefully incorrect) logical extreme, we end up at a point where the Buddha has zero authority because some of his own teachings (only at this logical extreme) negate any reason to follow them. We also end up where enlightenment and non enlightenment are the same thing, absolutely nothing whatsoever exists (or everything is imaginary and mind either does exist as the atta, or, paradoxically and self contradictory/self defeating, doesn't exist either), and practice is totally pointless, worse, practice is irrational and probably counterproductive.

I believe that the classical Theravada path is the only correct interpretation of the Pali Canon (I'm flexible on flux and a few other points, but other than that, it's pretty clearly a straightforward detailed explanation of what the Buddha taught).

Therefore, I see the Mahayana ideas that go this route (and only those ideas, not all Mahayana fit this bill) as essentially heterodox extrapolations that negate the Pali Canon entirely by using logic to circumvent it's teachings. This brings into one line of thought the Mahayana and the secular arguments against Buddhism, as both are merely extrapolations that turn the Buddha's teachings against the religion itself and invalidate all of Buddhism.

Basically I've lost faith due to following logic. It happens to be Mahayana, but their logic is self refuting and makes literally all of Buddhism pointless, and logic that disproves the faith is, for all intents and purposes, secular.

I want to get back to my old practice that I've been doing for nearly twenty years now, but that I've come to see as pointless.

The Mahayana have many treatises to ostensibly prove their superiority and disprove classical Theravada (and extremely strangely, all of Buddhism). Are there any such things in the Theravada that do the reverse? Have any authors in history written in defense of orthodox Theravada on this topic?

What advice would any classical Theravada adherents give me to get back on the path?

Treatises or other writings would be great! I'd also appreciate personal posts that defend the classical Theravada position on this topic. Any other advice also would be welcome, but logic to fight logic seems like a straightforward solution.

If you're formulating a rebuttal of the classical position and are about to challenge the classical Theravada position in some way, please read the bottom of this post. Everyone else, the post ends here :smile:

Please and thank you!


You need to learn how to get into a deep state of samadhi so you can eventually see the truth of the noble path.



































































The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should, where appropriate, include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.

-Guidelines for the Classical Theravada Sub Forum
I've no interest in people trying to teach me how Suttanta or Mahayana points are correct and the classical Theravada position is wrong. Further, this type of post that challenges the classical position is not allowed in this sub forum, so please keep these feelings to yourselves.

This site is mostly Suttanta, and Suttanta is generally in agreement with one or more Mahayana points that do not exist in classical Theravada, or that directly refute or seek to disprove a classical Theravada position. Since most users are Suttanta, it seems they don't even realize they are refuting the classical positions. The orthodox, on this site, is considered the heretic. Hence, nearly every classical Theravada post that I make has some Suttanta adherent trying to convince me or others that the classical position is wrong. I can see where this is not always deliberate, as some users probably don't even know that they are not supposed to challenge the classical position in this subforum, and, perhaps more often, do not even know that their position is not the classical position that has defined Theravada for millennia. Nevertheless, this is the one place where classical Theravada is considered correct and authoritative, and where Suttanta or Mahayana or other proselytizing is disallowed, as is challenging the classical position(s). Please respect that.

I've also zero interest in people trying to teach me how Mahayana is the correct understanding and that it never negates or disproves Buddhism (the Heart Sutra alone is nearly impossible to get around on this issue, to say nothing of the mountains of other texts that support this reading). Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of my assumptions on the Mahayana, I am looking for renewal of faith in classical Theravada and nothing else.
tamdrin
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by tamdrin »

Just understand the truth of karma.. strive to see it in your life somehow... and then understand how there are past and future lives based on the continuity of consciousness and karma playing out over multiple lives. Then practice samadhi and try and get some personal experience. You won't have to cling on to your intellectual mind anymore because you will know the truth of the dhamma. In doing so you will know the Buddha too.

Best wishes.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am

I've also zero interest in people trying to teach me how Mahayana is the correct understanding and that it never negates or disproves Buddhism (the Heart Sutra alone is nearly impossible to get around on this issue, to say nothing of the mountains of other texts that support this reading). Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of my assumptions on the Mahayana, I am looking for renewal of faith in classical Theravada and nothing else.

So have any of these replies helped?
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
TRobinson465
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by TRobinson465 »

zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am So, if we extrapolate certain ideas in the Pali Canon to their (hopefully incorrect) logical extreme, we end up at a point where the Buddha has zero authority because some of his own teachings (only at this logical extreme) negate any reason to follow them. We also end up where enlightenment and non enlightenment are the same thing, absolutely nothing whatsoever exists (or everything is imaginary and mind either does exist as the atta, or, paradoxically and self contradictory/self defeating, doesn't exist either), and practice is totally pointless, worse, practice is irrational and probably counterproductive.

I believe that the classical Theravada path is the only correct interpretation of the Pali Canon (I'm flexible on flux and a few other points, but other than that, it's pretty clearly a straightforward detailed explanation of what the Buddha taught).

Therefore, I see the Mahayana ideas that go this route (and only those ideas, not all Mahayana fit this bill) as essentially heterodox extrapolations that negate the Pali Canon entirely by using logic to circumvent it's teachings. This brings into one line of thought the Mahayana and the secular arguments against Buddhism, as both are merely extrapolations that turn the Buddha's teachings against the religion itself and invalidate all of Buddhism.

Basically I've lost faith due to following logic. It happens to be Mahayana, but their logic is self refuting and makes literally all of Buddhism pointless, and logic that disproves the faith is, for all intents and purposes, secular.

I want to get back to my old practice that I've been doing for nearly twenty years now, but that I've come to see as pointless.

The Mahayana have many treatises to ostensibly prove their superiority and disprove classical Theravada (and extremely strangely, all of Buddhism). Are there any such things in the Theravada that do the reverse? Have any authors in history written in defense of orthodox Theravada on this topic?

What advice would any classical Theravada adherents give me to get back on the path?

Treatises or other writings would be great! I'd also appreciate personal posts that defend the classical Theravada position on this topic. Any other advice also would be welcome, but logic to fight logic seems like a straightforward solution.

If you're formulating a rebuttal of the classical position and are about to challenge the classical Theravada position in some way, please read the bottom of this post. Everyone else, the post ends here :smile:

Please and thank you!









The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should, where appropriate, include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.

-Guidelines for the Classical Theravada Sub Forum
I've no interest in people trying to teach me how Suttanta or Mahayana points are correct and the classical Theravada position is wrong. Further, this type of post that challenges the classical position is not allowed in this sub forum, so please keep these feelings to yourselves.

This site is mostly Suttanta, and Suttanta is generally in agreement with one or more Mahayana points that do not exist in classical Theravada, or that directly refute or seek to disprove a classical Theravada position. Since most users are Suttanta, it seems they don't even realize they are refuting the classical positions. The orthodox, on this site, is considered the heretic. Hence, nearly every classical Theravada post that I make has some Suttanta adherent trying to convince me or others that the classical position is wrong. I can see where this is not always deliberate, as some users probably don't even know that they are not supposed to challenge the classical position in this subforum, and, perhaps more often, do not even know that their position is not the classical position that has defined Theravada for millennia. Nevertheless, this is the one place where classical Theravada is considered correct and authoritative, and where Suttanta or Mahayana or other proselytizing is disallowed, as is challenging the classical position(s). Please respect that.

I've also zero interest in people trying to teach me how Mahayana is the correct understanding and that it never negates or disproves Buddhism (the Heart Sutra alone is nearly impossible to get around on this issue, to say nothing of the mountains of other texts that support this reading). Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of my assumptions on the Mahayana, I am looking for renewal of faith in classical Theravada and nothing else.

I think the problem here is you are using logical extremes. The Buddha taught to avoid extremes, as well as to not cling strongly to views. He even says don't believe in something just because it's logical. Just because it's logical doesn't mean it's true.

My best advice is be humble and not pretend your logic is infallible or even right, the truth may be logical and you are just missing it, or the truth may be illogical but still true. Which is possible. Like the monty hall paradox, mathematically true and can be proven as such by mathematicians but intuitively illogical.

There are only two types of unenlightened people in the world. Unenlightened people who know that they don't know. And unenlightened people who don't know that they don't know. Try to be the first.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.
zan
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by zan »

DNS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:49 am
zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am Therefore, I see the Mahayana ideas that go this route (and only those ideas, not all Mahayana fit this bill) as essentially heterodox extrapolations that negate the Pali Canon entirely by using logic to circumvent it's teachings. This brings into one line of thought the Mahayana and the secular arguments against Buddhism, as both are merely extrapolations that turn the Buddha's teachings against the religion itself and invalidate all of Buddhism.

Basically I've lost faith due to following logic. It happens to be Mahayana, but their logic is self refuting and makes literally all of Buddhism pointless, and logic that disproves the faith is, for all intents and purposes, secular.
You say that, but you don't say how this is so. What are these Mahayana teachings which negate the Pali Canon and refute Theravada?
I'm sorry to reuse the same post, but it fits so here are examples. Also, there are many Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings that go against Theravada, are you suggesting there are not? If so, then why do the Mahayana and Vajrayana use different, later sutras and denigrate the Theravada as "Hinayana", considering the Pali Canon as such as well? Do you not see any teachings in the sutras that oppose what is in the Pali Canon? If not, and the sutras are totally in sync with and do not oppose the Pali Canon, then why do they hold a separate position in almost all textual categorizations, even ones that were long before modern scholarship dated these documents and many didn't realize their later dating?
Buddha-nature
Main articles: Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
An influential division of 1st-millennium CE Buddhist texts develop the notion of Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature.[76][77] The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.[78]

The Tathāgatagarbha is the topic of the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, where the title itself means a garbha (womb, matrix, seed) containing Tathāgata (Buddha). In the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras' the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self. The ultimate goal of the path is characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.[79]

These Sutras suggest, states Paul Williams, that 'all sentient beings contain a Tathāgata as their 'essence, core or essential inner nature'.[78] They also present a further developed understanding of emptiness, wherein the Buddha Nature, the Buddha and Liberation are seen as transcending the realm of emptiness, i.e. of the conditioned and dependently originated phenomena.[80]

One of these texts, the Angulimaliya Sutra, contrasts between empty phenomena such as the moral and emotional afflictions (kleshas), which are like ephemeral hailstones, and the enduring, eternal Buddha, which is like a precious gem:

The tens of millions of afflictive emotions like hail-stones are empty. The phenomena in the class of non-virtues, like hail-stones, quickly disintegrate. Buddha, like a vaidurya jewel, is permanent ... The liberation of a buddha also is form ... do not make a discrimination of non-division, saying, "The character of liberation is empty".'[81]

The Śrīmālā Sūtra is one of the earliest texts on Tathāgatagarbha thought, composed in 3rd century in south India, according to Brian Brown. It asserted that everyone can potentially attain Buddhahood, and warns against the doctrine of Sunyata.[82] The Śrīmālā Sūtra posits that the Buddha-nature is ultimately identifiable as the supramundane nature of the Buddha, the garbha is the ground for Buddha-nature, this nature is unborn and undying, has ultimate existence, has no beginning nor end, is nondual, and permanent.[83] The text also adds that the garbha has "no self, soul or personality" and "incomprehensible to anyone distracted by sunyata (voidness)"; rather it is the support for phenomenal existence.[84]

The notion of Buddha-nature and its interpretation was and continues to be widely debated in all schools of Mahayana Buddhism. Some traditions interpret the doctrine to be equivalent to emptiness (like the Tibetan Gelug school), the positive language of the texts Tathāgatagarbha sutras are then interpreted as being of provisional meaning, and not ultimately true. Other schools however (mainly the Jonang school), see Tathāgatagarbha as being an ultimate teaching and see it as an eternal, true self, while Sunyata is seen as a provisional, lower teaching.[85]

Likewise, western scholars have been divided in their interpretation of the Tathāgatagarbha, since the doctrine of an 'essential nature' in every living being appears to be confusing, since it seems to be equivalent to a 'Self',[note 8][87] which seems to contradict the doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts. Some scholars, however, view such teachings as metaphorical, not to be taken literally.[80]

According to some scholars, the Buddha nature which these sutras discuss, does not represent a substantial self (ātman). Rather, it is a positive expression of emptiness, and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[88][89] According to others, the potential of salvation depends on the ontological reality of a salvific, abiding core reality — the Buddha-nature, empty of all mutability and error, fully present within all beings.[90]
-Wiki page on Sunyata
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi-Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Studholme comments:

'Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synonymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, 'primordial lord'.' [7
-Wiki page on Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra
Shentong (Tibetan: གཞན་སྟོང་, Wylie: gzhan stong, Lhasa dialect: [ɕɛ̃̀tṍŋ], also transliterated zhäntong or zhentong; literally "other-emptiness") is a position within Tibetan Madhyamaka. It applies śūnyatā in a specific way, agreeing that relative reality is empty of self-nature, but stating that absolute reality (Paramarthasatya)[2][note 1] is "non-dual Buddhajnana"[2][note 2] and "empty" (Wylie: stong) only of "other," (Wylie: gzhan) relative phenomena, but is itself not empty[3] and "truly existing."[4] This absolute reality is described by positive terms, an approach which helps "to overcome certain residual subtle concepts"[5] and "the habit [...] of negating whatever experience arises in his/her mind."[6] It destroys false concepts, as does prasangika, but it also alerts the practitioner "to the presence of a dynamic, positive Reality that is to be experienced once the conceptual mind is defeated."[6]
-Wiki page on Rangtong-Shentong
Āstika derives from the Sanskrit asti, "there is, there exists", and means one who believes in the existence of a Self/Soul[disambiguation needed] or Brahman, etc. and nāstika means the one who doesn't believe in existence of a Soul or Self.[1] These have been concepts used to classify Indian philosophies by modern scholars, and some Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina texts.[2][3][5]

...

According to Andrew Nicholson, later Buddhists understood Asanga to be targeting Madhyamaka Buddhism as nastika, while considering his own Yogacara Buddhist tradition to be astika.

-Wiki page on Astika and Nastika
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
zan
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by zan »

samseva wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:28 am You could find material and counter-arguments for every Mahāyāna/secular teaching out there, but that probably won't amount to much... Instead, try this, which will likely result in something beneficial:

(Stop studying/reading/thinking about secular/Mahāyāna teachings.)
1. Read/study the Suttas/Tipiṭaka—i.e., the teachings of the Buddha (even learn Pāḷi, to better understand the teachings).
- Don't take everything on blind faith, but also stay open-minded (rebirth, etc.).
2. Put these into practice.
3. Meditate (samatha and vipassāna).
4. Be happy and enjoy the lessoned suffering in your life.

Repeat steps 1-4—especially meditation—until you reach Nibbāna.

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

Thank you
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
zan
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Mahayana and secular logic has made me largely give up on the path...

Post by zan »

robertk wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:46 am Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha (by Buddhaghosa) (p3 of Points of contoversy, PTS)

It talks about after the second council (about 100 years after Buddha parinibbana)
Theravada in these quotes are 'Classical Theravada'.
It points out the various schisms happening long ago .
"Ten thousand of the of the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus[after splitting from the good monks] seeking adherents among themselves, formed a school called the Mahasanghika [these then split several times] Thus from the school of the Mahasanghikas, in the second century only two schools seceded from the Theravada[note that the rightful monks are called Theravada by Buddhaghosa]-Mahimsinsasakas and Vajjiputtakas... [it lists more that split later]..Thus from the Theravada arose these eleven seceding bodies making 12 in all. And these 12 together the six schools of the Mahasanghikas constitute the 18 schools which arose in the second century. Of the eighteen, 17 are to be understood as schismatics, the Theravadan only being non- schismatic.""
"
Here is where we see pattern of the changes..
The commentary continues and cites the Dipavamsa
The Bhikkhus [of the schismatic sects]
settled a doctrine contrary [to the true faith] Altering the original redaction, they made another. they transposed suttas which belonged in one collection to another place;they destroyed the true meaning and the faith in the vinyaa and in the five collections. Those bhikkus who understood neither what had been taught in long expositons...settled a false meaning in connection with spourious speeches of the Buddha. These bhikkhus destroyed a great deal of meaning under the colour of the letter. Rejecting the other texts- that is to say the Pavara, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidhida, the niddessa and some portions of the Jataka they composed new ones. They changed their appearance, ..forsaking what was original..."
Thank you :twothumbsup:
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
Post Reply