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.
zan
Posts: 1122
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 4:54 am There will always be those who oppose the Theravada- it is no surprise that this happens today.

This is about the 3rd council at the time of Asoka
Wise Moggaliputta, the destroyer
of the schismatic doctrines, firmly established the Thera-
vada and held the third Council. 41. Having destroyed
the different (heretical) doctrines and subdued many shame-
less people and restored splendour to the (true) faith, he
proclaimed (the treatise called) Katthavatthu. 42. From
that Moggaliputta, Mahinda, who was the pupil of that
teacher, learnt the true religion. 43. (Moggaliputta) taught
him the five Nikayas and the seven sections (of the Abhi-
dhamma); he the hero, the clever one learnt from his
teacher the two Vibhhangas of the Vinaya, the Parivara,
and the Khandhaka.


44. When the second century and thirty -six years
more had elapsed (since the Buddha's death), again a most
dreadful schism arose in the Theravada. 45^ In the city
of Pataliputta ruled prince Dhammasoka, a great king,
who was a believer in the faith of Buddha. 46. He be-
stowed great gifts on the Sangha, the best and most ex-
cellent of congregations; in one day he expended four
lacs. 47. One he gave in honour of the Cetiyas, another
for the preaching of the Dhamma, one for the require-
ments of the sick, one to the Samgha. 48. Infidels, sixty
thousand in number, seeing this gain and these great
honours, furtively attached themselves (to the Samgha).
49. The Patimokkha ceremonies in the monastery of the
Asokarama were interrupted; a minister who ordered the
Patimokkha ceremonies to be performed, killed (some) of
the Saints. 50. In order to destroy the infidels, many dis-
ciples of Buddha, sixty thousand sons of the Jina assem-
bled. 51. At that convocation the son of Moggaliputta was
the president, a great chief, similar to the Teacher; he
had not his like on earth. 52. The king asked the Thera
about the case of the slaughter of the Saints ; having per-
formed a miracle, he satisfied the desire of the king.
53. Having received the Doctrine from the Thera, the
king destroyed the Bhikkhu emblems of those who had
furtively attached themselves (to the Samgha). 54. The
reckless infidels, performing the Pabbajja rite according to
their own doctrine, injured the faith of the Buddha just
as (men mix) pure gold (with baser metals). 55. They all
were sectarian, opposed to the Theravada; and in order
to annihilate them and to make his own doctrine resplen-
dent, — 56. the Thera set forth the treatise belonging to
the Abhidhamma, which is called Kathavatthu. A similar
punishment, a similar destruction of an opposite doctrine
never occurred. 57. 58. After having promulgated the
treatise called Kathavatthu which belongs to the Abhi-
dhamma
, the presiding Thera, in order to purify his own
doctrine and (to establish) the Faith for a long time, selected one thousand Arahats, choosing the best ones, and
held a Council. 59. In the monastery of the Asokarama
which had been built by king Dhammasoka, this third
convocation was finished in the space of nine months.
=Here ends the Council of the true Faith which
lasted nine months.
:clap:
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: 1122
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 »

SarathW wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:56 am Please read Cula Sunnata sutta and Maha Sunnata Sutta to understand the Theravada teaching on emptiness.
When you practice emptiness, you will not face this problem whether things exist or non-exist.
:thumbsup: Will do
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: 1122
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 »

SDC wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:10 pm
zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am ...
The impression I always get from your posts is that you're trying to hold too much together. I'm not sure if someone told you to do that or if it's you're own strategy, but if you're only taking what is considered orthodox as your field of work, you're ultimately going to be pulled in different directions while trying to stay in the center. The whole notion of orthodoxy is that it is self-contained, but at what point does your own suffering; the extent of your work; the personal movement of your own practice become a factor? It's almost as if recognition of the impression of your own suffering is off limits to you and that you prefer an external framework as a refuge. If that is the case, how will things ever change for you? @zan is not part of orthodox Theravada, so where do the two come together?

Even this thread...you put in Classical Theravada to protect it from anything that would pull it away from what seems to be the only framework you consider appropriate. If you don't want to respond to me, that is ok, but you should be asking yourself why you chose an exclusive field of work.
That's a good question. It stems from the difference between faith and intellectual pursuit. My faith lies with the orthodox. My intellect is pulled this way and that. Ultimately, orthodox has worked the best for me too. So my skeptical, overthinking mind gets pulled around, but in actual practice, orthodox has been a roaring success for me, and holds my faith as well.

So I should probably choose and stick to an exclusive field. Good points. Thank you.
Last edited by zan on Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1122
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:45 pm
zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am ...

Basically I've lost faith due to following logic.

...


The more I read that sentence, the more I want to re-word it for myself like:
  • "Basically I've strengthened faith due to following logic"
(in other words)
  • "By using logic, theravada is increasingly found to be the most dependable one available, as long as true Buddha's teachings and utmost liberation are concerned."

:heart:
:goodpost:

You know what? Forget it. You're absolutely correct. I've no idea why I'm wasting my time parsing out all these tiny little nonsense ideas when I already know the correct path. Forget supposed logical extrapolation that leads to ostensible contradiction. The proof is in the pudding and the only pudding that has ever turned out as edible and nutritious for me is orthodox. I'm going t listen to you and several other users on this thread who have suggested I just practice. And practice I will, and it will be orthodox because Mahayana koan study or whatever other practices have never worked for me, but traditional jhana and the eightfold path 100% has.

Thank you.
Last edited by zan on Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1122
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 »

Thank you all.

I've no idea what I was thinking. Orthodox makes sense, and works, I've had nothing but confusion and disillusionment with Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings, even when I went so far as to train under the abbot of a Zen temple for over a year. Surely these schools work for many, but they don't work for me, and orthodox absolutely does!

So I'll stop the extrapolation and reading fifty different schools works and just practice.

Thanks again all.
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: 1122
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 »

TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:35 pm
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.

...

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.
Good advice thank you. To quote the great Joe West from the Flash "You don't know what you don't know." And we don't want to be at the end of that admonition!
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.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
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 »

zan wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:21 am ...
...
The proof is in the pudding and the only pudding that has ever turned out as edible and nutritious for me is orthodox.
...
...

That reflects me quite perfectly, too.

Currently, though I consider myself quite Unorthodox, I've found so far that only the Classical Theravada has core guidances, maybe along with some contextual entries, clearly and coherently laid out for liberation.




:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
StrivingforMonkhood
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:27 pm

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

Post by StrivingforMonkhood »

DNS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:49 amYou 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 agree. We have to be very careful when we criticize other schools of Buddhism. In the end, the Dhamma is the Dhamma, and the Buddha's most prominent and important teachings are upheld in all proper schools.

We can debate meditation techniques, aspects of emptiness, and non-duality with civility; but we know that all proper Buddhist schools have clear paths to enlightenment. That is not debatable.

There are aspects of Theravada that don't match my personality (more of what it comes down to), but I have great respect for the tradition. I prefer Mahayana in some regards. That said, I am also here because I have been emotionally abused on two other Buddhist forums (primarily by a moderator on another site). While some on here are not overly pleasant, the overall feeling here is that the members make more efforts to be more appropriate in Right Speech, and to treat others with respect, or so it has seemed up to this point in my overall experience.

Peace and enlightenment
May we all fulfill our deepest wish for happiness

We are already Buddha
zan
Posts: 1122
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:29 am
zan wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:21 am ...
...
The proof is in the pudding and the only pudding that has ever turned out as edible and nutritious for me is orthodox.
...
...

That reflects me quite perfectly, too.

Currently, though I consider myself quite Unorthodox, I've found so far that only the Classical Theravada has core guidances, maybe along with some contextual entries, clearly and coherently laid out for liberation.




:heart:
I consider the Kathavatthu to take authority over the commentaries, since it is part of the Pali Canon. This is a bit unorthodox, yet in the end it is an internal orthodox issue, as both texts are orthodox, and both technically commentarial in nature. Since the Kathavatthu denies flux of all things, like mountains and such being intensely fast or merely lasting a moment, things like mountains and such or even the eye organ (KV 22.8 and others), I take this side of that issue. Other than that, I'm in agreement with the commentary tradition on most things.
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.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
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 »

zan wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:29 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:29 am
zan wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:21 am ...
...
The proof is in the pudding and the only pudding that has ever turned out as edible and nutritious for me is orthodox.
...
...

That reflects me quite perfectly, too.

Currently, though I consider myself quite Unorthodox, I've found so far that only the Classical Theravada has core guidances, maybe along with some contextual entries, clearly and coherently laid out for liberation.




:heart:
I consider the Kathavatthu to take authority over the commentaries, since it is part of the Pali Canon. This is a bit unorthodox, yet in the end it is an internal orthodox issue, as both texts are orthodox, and both technically commentarial in nature. Since the Kathavatthu denies flux of all things, like mountains and such being intensely fast or merely lasting a moment, things like mountains and such or even the eye organ (KV 22.8 and others), I take this side of that issue. Other than that, I'm in agreement with the commentary tradition on most things.

That's very interesting. Obviously my common sense makes me obliged to agree also with that very rational view from certain perspectives.

However, I prefer and strongly believe _ not by faith but by logic based upon personal premises _ in just the opposite end from that very point amounting to my writing in somewhere:
  • Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:31 am Some of my personally most satisfied understandings:
    ...
    • All perceivable worlds (not the observable universe, lol) might actually arise and perish momentarily, continually, and ... simultaneously, all in unison.
    ...
... this is my interpretation of a verse found in Burmese about Buddha's qualities.

The more I ponder, the more I hold: "That must be so", especially when considering in unison with SN 35.23 (Sabba Sutta: The All).

Theravada is amazing!



:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
zan
Posts: 1122
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:12 am
zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am
Basically I've lost faith due to following logic.
Sure. Who told you to follow logic?

Isn't this problem of faith solved by the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha told people not to rely (among other things) on logic, but to rely on our own experiences? :anjali:
:heart:
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.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10581
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: Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:02 am
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:12 am
zan wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:19 am
Basically I've lost faith due to following logic.
Sure. Who told you to follow logic?

Isn't this problem of faith solved by the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha told people not to rely (among other things) on logic, but to rely on our own experiences? :anjali:
:heart:
“Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” David Hume
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti

“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
Post Reply