Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:03 am
oh screw it, time for schisms
the five aggregate teaching is a misinterpreted reformulation of dependent co-arising
there i said it; written plain and simple in mn 18:
form (rūpa, e.g. cakkhu) → sentience or contact (viññāṇa or phassa) → sensation (vedanā) → apperception (saññā) → volition (saṅkhāra, vitakka, papañca, saṅkha) → dukkha
saññā is the main culprit; snp 4.11 presents a solution, and so does mn 18
see you in aviici hell, suckers; or tusita heaven, who knows
view or knowledge is a construct based on a particular way cognition works; the world of ordinary experience is an unreal conceptual construction; the teachings of dependent co-arising and the five aggregates do not necessarily describe the metaphysical order of things in the universe, or how the world begun, or what it's made from, in what order, etc., instead they are a metaphysical critique of knowledge and view formation, with 'view' being more than just belief, but the way one perceives; the purpose of these two teachings is to help you deconstruct the illusion and thus unbind
personal notes from alex wynne's ocbs lectures that i wanted to share in the appropriate forum section
So is the above Alex Wynne's stance, or is it your stance after having heard Alex Wynne's lectures?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:30 pm
So is the above Alex Wynne's stance, or is it your stance after having heard Alex Wynne's lectures?
I can't say for sure because I took these notes many months ago; everything below colored in blue I consider to be approximate quotations from his lectures on early Buddhist meditation (I listened through them on SoundCloud multiple times and transcribed most of the stuff), while everything else that isn't colored is my own commentary from today and yesterday:
Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:03 am
oh screw it, time for schisms
the five aggregate teaching is a misinterpreted reformulation of dependent co-arising
there i said it; written plain and simple in mn 18:
form (rūpa, e.g. cakkhu) → sentience or contact (viññāṇa or phassa) → sensation (vedanā) → apperception (saññā) → volition (saṅkhāra, vitakka, papañca, saṅkha) → dukkha
saññā is the main culprit; snp 4.11 presents a solution, and so does mn 18
see you in aviici hell, suckers; or tusita heaven, who knows
view or knowledge is a construct based on a particular way cognition works; the world of ordinary experience is an unreal conceptual construction; the teachings of dependent co-arising and the five aggregates do not necessarily describe the metaphysical order of things in the universe, or how the world begun, or what it's made from, in what order, etc., instead they are a metaphysical critique of knowledge and view formation, with 'view' being more than just belief, but the way one perceives; the purpose of these two teachings is to help you deconstruct the illusion and thus unbind
personal notes from alex wynne's ocbs lectures that i wanted to share in the appropriate forum section
I might be wrong on some of the words, but oh well, I'm sure that the meaning and nearly everything is the same. Also, some things I took from his PDF presentations, which he discussed while talking in said lectures. The Soundcloud lectures and the PDF presentations are available for free in the OCBS site. Sorry if I accidently put any words into the guy's mouth lol!
It seemed to me that the five aggregates and the four foundations of mindfulness are similar. Although I do get the point about the second half of dependent origination having a lot of overlap with the aggregates.
5 aggregates are the objects/means of experience, dependent origination is the methodology in which these objects come together and separate.
It's like you have the ingredients and a recipe. 5 aggregates are the ingredients, dependent origination is the recipe.
Two separate things.
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.
un8- wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:50 am
5 aggregates are the objects/means of experience, dependent origination is the methodology in which these objects come together and separate.
It's like you have the ingredients and a recipe. 5 aggregates are the ingredients, dependent origination is the recipe.
Two separate things.
all are free to believe whatever they wish, so no problem
if you want to look into the matter more closely then i've left some sources in my previous posts here
Inedible wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:49 pm
It seemed to me that the five aggregates and the four foundations of mindfulness are similar. Although I do get the point about the second half of dependent origination having a lot of overlap with the aggregates.
in these lectures alex explains the four foundations of mindfulness, including mindfulness of breath, as forged teachings that became heavily distorted, initially intended to be nothing more than descriptions of what happens during sati and jhana
Dweller wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:05 am
One of the countless possibilities if we were to engage in boundless speculation.
i don't see anything bad in putting the supposedly most important thing in the universe (matters concerning liberation; the buddhadhamma, as claimed to be transcendental and leading to liberation) to the test. the bets are after all quite high
Does the OP have any actual quotes of Wynne actually saying any of this? The blue text that he maybe-did-maybe-didn't say isn't particularly helpful, tbh. It's a wild and extreme thesis, and I'd expect there would be plentiful quotes of Wynne from extensive attempts to defend and buttress the thesis, if he truly believes this.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:22 am
Does the OP have any actual quotes of Wynne actually saying any of this? The blue text that he maybe-did-maybe-didn't say isn't particularly helpful, tbh. It's a wild and extreme thesis, and I'd expect there would be plentiful quotes of Wynne from extensive attempts to defend and buttress the thesis, if he truly believes this.
5 hours... it's a little like asking your interlocutor to read the whole Pāli Canon when citing the entire compendium for a point that should be easy to substantiate without citing the entire compendium. I'm a bit skeptical, yes, but I'm not going to listen to 5 hours of audio in order to contextualize the blue text you say he maybe said. I think the onus is on you to provide substantive quotations, but you don't need to just because I think so.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:14 pm
5 hours... it's a little like asking your interlocutor to read the whole Pāli Canon when citing the entire compendium for a point that should be easy to substantiate without citing the entire compendium. I'm a bit skeptical, yes, but I'm not going to listen to 5 hours of audio in order to contextualize the blue text you say he maybe said. I think the onus is on you to provide substantive quotations, but you don't need to just because I think so.
not really asking anyone to listen or read anything, all im doing is just sharing a condensed version of what ive transcribed and learned from said materials. i personally listened and read all of those things at least more than five times. it was brutal and i hated every single moment of it, but here i am freely sharing the fruits of my labor with the world out of compassion
also i dont think one needs to listen to 5 hours of talks and read many academic works (which he likely wont be able to understand the first few times) in order to put the text from my original post into practice (if he so wishes)
yes these are rather extreme theories in light of what the orthodox tradition stands for and require careful research if one wishes to confirm anything for themselves, whether true or false, etc.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:30 pm
So is the above Alex Wynne's stance, or is it your stance after having heard Alex Wynne's lectures?
I can't say for sure because I took these notes many months ago; everything below colored in blue I consider to be approximate quotations from his lectures on early Buddhist meditation (I listened through them on SoundCloud multiple times and transcribed most of the stuff), while everything else that isn't colored is my own commentary from today and yesterday:
Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:03 am
oh screw it, time for schisms
the five aggregate teaching is a misinterpreted reformulation of dependent co-arising
there i said it; written plain and simple in mn 18:
form (rūpa, e.g. cakkhu) → sentience or contact (viññāṇa or phassa) → sensation (vedanā) → apperception (saññā) → volition (saṅkhāra, vitakka, papañca, saṅkha) → dukkha
saññā is the main culprit; snp 4.11 presents a solution, and so does mn 18
see you in aviici hell, suckers; or tusita heaven, who knows
view or knowledge is a construct based on a particular way cognition works; the world of ordinary experience is an unreal conceptual construction; the teachings of dependent co-arising and the five aggregates do not necessarily describe the metaphysical order of things in the universe, or how the world begun, or what it's made from, in what order, etc., instead they are a metaphysical critique of knowledge and view formation, with 'view' being more than just belief, but the way one perceives; the purpose of these two teachings is to help you deconstruct the illusion and thus unbind
personal notes from alex wynne's ocbs lectures that i wanted to share in the appropriate forum section
I might be wrong on some of the words, but oh well, I'm sure that the meaning and nearly everything is the same. Also, some things I took from his PDF presentations, which he discussed while talking in said lectures. The Soundcloud lectures and the PDF presentations are available for free in the OCBS site. Sorry if I accidently put any words into the guy's mouth lol!
So if sanna (perception) is the "main culprit" in this interpretation of DO, does this mean that sanna needs to be got rid of?
And if so, how would this work practically speaking, given that perception is how we recognise sense-objects and navigate our world?
How would an Arahant cross a busy road if she doesn't recognise "traffic light", "bus", "lorry", etc?
Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:20 am
So if sanna (perception) is the "main culprit" in this interpretation of DO, does this mean that sanna needs to be got rid of?
And if so, how would this work practically speaking, given that perception is how we recognise sense-objects and navigate our world?
How would an Arahant cross a busy road if she doesn't recognise "traffic light", "bus", "lorry", etc?
Understanding something doesn’t mean it’s gotten rid of. It means the taints are gotten rid of in relation to it. I can’t speak for Wynne, but if the claim is that all is a concept it doesn’t then mean you get rid of concepts. Concepts are still there, it’s just you understand them.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”