EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

This is from the thread: Heretic teaching of Ajahn Sumedho

During a discussion about the unorthox views of Thai Forest Tradition, I noticed the following behavior of Sutta/EBT/Attanomati-vadins:
SarathW wrote:
DNS wrote: The Ajahn refers to a "permanent consciousness" which certainly is unorthodox, contrary to the Classical Theravada. Typically such unorthodox views refer to a permanent citta, since citta is not listed as one of the aggregates (Ajahns Boowa and Mun and perhaps some others).

However, consciousness is listed as one of the aggregates (viññāna) and the idea of it being permanent is refuted in MN 38 Sati, the fisherman's son.
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato

Around the mid point of the video he refers to a universal consciousness, also at odds with the Classical view.

It may even be a more extreme view than the Pudgalavada school, since the Pudgalavada refers to something of an impermanent self, not a permanent one.
Thank you, David. I did not expect such overwhelming support for my topic.
How can being in an unorthodox position, one use the orthodox position to invalidate another unorthodox position.
DNS wrote: The Ajahn refers to a "permanent consciousness" which certainly is unorthodox, contrary to the Classical Theravada.
So his subconscious knows that orthodox Theravada is the true one.
DNS wrote: It may even be a more extreme view than the Pudgalavada school, since the Pudgalavada refers to something of an impermanent self, not a permanent one.
Ok, it is a more extreme view >>but>> with reference to which position?

How can being in an unorthodox position, one use the orthodox position to invalidate another unorthodox position?

This is an evidence for the fact that "EBT-people don't have a base."
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by DNS »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:15 am This is an evidence for the fact that "EBT-people don't have a base."
Not at all. You already answered your own question:
Ok, it is a more extreme view >>but>> with reference to which position?
Where does it say EBT person must believe in a permanent self/soul? Do you think Ajahn Brahm or Bhante Sujato believe in a permanent self/soul? If you do, you'd be wrong. They don't.

See, for example:
Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

DNS wrote: ...
You are trying to escape from it.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:19 am You are trying to escape from it.
Escape from what? This all sounds rather petty and vindictive to me. If you wish to demonstrate that Classical Theravada is great, then wouldn't you strive to be an exemplar of the wholesome qualities it promotes?

As it stands, what does all this achieve and what is the purpose of this topic?
Eko Care wrote:How can being in an unorthodox position, one use the orthodox position to invalidate another unorthodox position?
Sounds like the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". Orthodoxy and authority does not make an argument and therefore your topic is seemingly about nothing other than showing us a logical fallacy of yours.

It's fine if your authority is Buddhaghosa and other people's might be the Buddha, or their own teachers or whatnot, but this just looks like you're grasping at an opportunity to violate ToS2f under the mistaken impression that the Classical Theravada section guidelines provide immunity to that.

Please up your game and make this topic meaningfully about something other than your hang ups.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by mikenz66 »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:19 am
DNS wrote: ...
You are trying to escape from it.
I think that this issue needs a bit more nuance. Monks such as Ajahn Sumedho are not what I would call "EBT people", they are students of the Thai Forest Tradition. There is plenty of criticism of some of their ideas, such as permanent consciousness, by those who study EBTs, such as Bhikkhu Sujato (who, I might add, does not have the "anything not EBT is rubbish" attitude one often sees on this Forum).
There are various references at the end of this essay: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/vi ... ness/22262

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

retrofuturist wrote: .....
I know by experience that you are someone who is too aggressive to debate with.
Whenever there is a post which is not comply with your view, you get angry and use admin's power to do something against it.

The point I made is a clear argument. DNS uses the the 'orthodox position' and not his or your position, to refute another unorthodox view.

Isn't it baseless if a Christian tries to prove that 'Judaism is wrong' using Quran? (Whatever the truth may be)

The authority he uses is also something he doesn't agree with.
mikenz66 wrote:
Monks such as Ajahn Sumedho are not what I would call "EBT people", they are students of the Thai Forest Tradition.
I think you have misunderstood what I said.
I know that Ajahn Sumedho is not of EBT crowd.

The point is, how can a unorthodox EBT-person use 'Orthodox text' as an authority against another unorthodox thai-forest person?
That was my point.

Isn't it baseless if a Christian tries to prove that 'Judaism is wrong' using Quran?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by DNS »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:08 am The point is, how can a unorthodox EBT-person use 'Orthodox text' as an authority against another unorthodox thai-forest person?
That was my point.

Isn't it baseless if a Christian tries to prove that 'Judaism is wrong' using Quran?
And here again you are wrong. I wasn't using the Quran, I quoted Suttas, which are a text of Buddhism. Classical Theravada and EBT are not the mortal enemies you presume. In fact, they both use Suttas, in addition to other texts.

You would do your "cause" of promoting Classical Theravada a better service by being a better example, as retro noted, not seeing other traditions as an enemy. I like studying and reading the EBTs but don't see Classical Theravada as bad or as an enemy to be defeated.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by mikenz66 »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:08 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Monks such as Ajahn Sumedho are not what I would call "EBT people", they are students of the Thai Forest Tradition.
I think you have misunderstood what I said.
I know that Ajahn Sumedho is not of EBT crowd.

The point is, how can a unorthodox EBT-person use 'Orthodox text' as an authority against another unorthodox thai-forest person?
That was my point.
I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. This eternal consciousness idea seems quite incompatible with EBTs, and Bhikkhu Sujato and others have criticised it based on EBTs. Of course, it's also incompatible the Commentaries.
I'm not sure if you've read Bhikkhu Sujato's essay on the developments in the Commentaries
How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... st/23019/3
It's much more measured and informed than the so-called "refutations" that one sees on this Forum, and in fact he disagrees with ideas such as one-lifetime dependent origination, unabsorbed jhana, that the arising of light in meditation is a later development, and so on.
Sujato wrote:The aim of this list is to help students understand where the language and ideas of modern Theravada has diverged from the Suttas. Of course, the fact that something is different does not mean that it’s better or worse. Sometimes things change in the letter but not the meaning; sometimes they adapt to circumstances; sometimes they expand things told in brief; and sometimes they change the meaning. I try to indicate where changes lie, and offer enough context to show why they matter.
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:26 am and Bhikkhu Sujato and others have criticised it based on EBTs.
But here DNS criticized it based on orthodoxy.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by DNS »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:34 am
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:26 am and Bhikkhu Sujato and others have criticised it based on EBTs.
But here DNS criticized it based on orthodoxy.
Using the Suttas, see my post. Again, EBT and Classical are not enemies, I don't know why you think that is or should be the case.

Believe it or not, I have the complete Tipitaka in my library and have read it all, including Abhidhamma.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

DNS wrote: better service by being ...
Giving unrelated answers to the question or giving some other advices (whether they are good or bad) to escape from the point raised by the OP, is not a good way of discussing/answering.
DNS wrote: Again, EBT and Classical are not enemies, I don't know why you think that is or should be the case.
Believe it or not, I have the complete Tipitaka in my library and have read it all, including Abhidhamma.
Even if they are not enemies, it becomes baseless refuting X based on Y while believing only in Z.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by DNS »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:47 am Even if they are not enemies, it becomes baseless refuting X based on Y while believing only in Z.
"based on Y" in your quote above is the Suttas. EBT and Classical both accept Suttas.

"only believing in Z" is false, as I do accept Pali Canon, but focus on Suttas, without rejecting anything.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Eko Care,
Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:08 am Whenever there is a post which is not comply with your view, you get angry and use admin's power to do something against it.
False - I administer the Terms of Service, whether that suits you or not. Be sure you're familiar with them, as you've already had one "topic" shut down that was nothing but a gratuitous attack on monks who follow the Dhammavinaya.
Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:08 amThe point I made is a clear argument. DNS uses the the 'orthodox position' and not his or your position, to refute another unorthodox view.
I don't really see how that's a clear argument at all. What's to stop someone using what you call an "orthodox" position to refute an "unorthodox" position?

For example, some superstitious bhikkhu might say something "unorthodox" such as "everything that happens to people happens because of past kamma". I could then point to Suttas such as SN 36.21 to show that this view is wrong, but if they didn't understand or wanted something from the commentaries to affirm this, I'd quite happily point them towards the commentarial teaching of the five niyamas to make clear the point. Would that be bothersome to you?

What you've failed to show is precisely what the issue or problem is, and it therefore just sounds like you're blurting out disgruntlement, devoid of what Mike termed "nuance".

If you're able to articulate the topic clearly, feel free to try again.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Eko Care »

retrofuturist wrote: ...
I don't think any one of you could ever defend the argument that EBTians do not have an Unambiguous Textual Base.

Talking about nuances and many other unrelated stuff is not a way of defending it.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:35 am
Sounds like the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority"…. I could then point to Suttas
And appeals to the suttas isn’t? :tongue:
“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.”
Post Reply