sense bases disappear ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Asahi,

Nonsense , by saying that you have no way of knowing the whole truth .

What is substantiating this comment other than hot air and bluster? Got Sutta?

I just pointed out you gave a wrong definition and misinterpreted the teachings .

Not that you've shown. All you've pointed out is that you don't like what has been said.

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

You might not like that interpretation of phassa, but so far you haven't provided a coherent alternative.
Just repeating "the meeting of the three" explains nothing about the nature and purpose of phassa in the teachings.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Asahi,

Eitherway , your take on Paticcasamuppada of one life model appear to be not inline with the Buddha's teachings , imo

Imo, I don't call it a "one life model" because it's not about "one life".

Per the suttas, it's about "dependent origination and dependently originated phenomena" (SN 12.20) and "the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering" (SN 12.15).

Mostly, it is not about "one life" because it is timeless (akaliko). It needn't be called "one life", simply because the commentarial interpretation abandoned and walked away from the akaliko quality of the Dhamma as it pegged their nidanas out over time, attributing factors to the past, present and future.

Metta,
Paul.

While your interpretation makes a lot of assumptions, the 3-lives model makes even more, IMO.

[PeterC86]

When you took jati and express it as self identity , it just could not match up with aging , sickness and death .

When there is no self-identity, then aging and death cease to be a problem, right?
The suffering here results primarily from the assumption of "my body". See the Arrow Sutta.

Indeed, it is that simple. Hence the importance of anatta in the teaching.

Alas, one cannot teach stubborn believers anything.


The disaster of the monks not understanding the teaching in the past, what lead to the first schism, can be seen today. Millions of people are led astray. Nagarjuna tried, but it was too late, as the misunderstanding was already put in writing. Also the explanation of Nagarjuna might have been too difficult for most to understand.

I applaud everyone's effort to inform the people of this misunderstanding, what they do with it is not up to us.

[PeterC86]

Greetings,

That is the departure point , for me the teachings has to encompass kamma and rebirth without which it is just a philosophy or it is optional .

Except there's nothing here that denies rebirth whatsoever. As I said, it's not about "one life"... those are and continue to be your words, and your misinterpretations that deviate from what was actually presented.

Also, kamma is embodied throughout paticcasamuppada, as kamma's very potency rests upon the deluded "I am" assumption. Once that assumption is abandoned via the breaking of the eighth fetter, no "action" is "kammic".

Metta,
Paul.

Exactly, and thinking that it would be "just a philosophy", is a big underestimation of the impact of the mind on our conscious perceptual experience. This can only be understood through experience.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

While your interpretation makes a lot of assumptions, the 3-lives model makes even more, IMO.

Thanks Spiny. My intent is to remain as faithful to the Buddha's Suttas as possible, nevermind what different traditions have done or thought differently over the centuries. If you ever see anything in the discourses themselves that you think runs counter to what I present, by all means please present it for consideration.



Metta,
Paul.

[Johann]

Well, with death hope of no more birth might fail, right? So maybe better to stick to the Arahats meanwhile, or consider going forth if 7 or more births are not acceptable. At least that samvega could lead to seeing the Dhamma.

[Johann]

Oh, and no, one's conditions and possibilities aren't akaliko. As saddha has dukkha as it's condition, a good birth will be required, right jati/stand, good householder.

[Coëmgenu]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

You might not like that interpretation of phassa, but so far you haven't provided a coherent alternative.
Just repeating "the meeting of the three" explains nothing about the nature and purpose of phassa in the teachings.

The meeting of the three indicates that there is no "self"/ātman that participates in either the three-way contact or the two-way contact, contrary to the doctrines of Ñāṇavīra-inspired modernists. It is a pseudo-mechanical process that happens regardless if one holds to self-view or not, because it is irrespective of self-view. Contact is never directly dependent upon self-view in the Buddha's suttas, and it is a typical slight-of-hand to suggest that it is. What it is directly dependent upon is the body accompanied by consciousness containing six sensory faculties responsive to certain externals, as per DO.

You may feel that these modernist exegeses make less assumptions, but they make more errors than assumptions. Certainly, the traditional teaching presumes that the practitioner is engaging with the living tradition of Buddhism as it has been transmitted over the ages, not trying to reconstruct a more pure Buddhism based on Protestant scriptural hermeneutics and the practitioner's internal culturally-conditioned sense of what is reasonable and what is common sense.

These "assumptions" are simply how Buddhists have, since ancient times, actually interpreted the highly ambiguous words of the EBTs. The assumptions of modernists on the other hand produce all kinds of easily-refuted errors when their teachings on DO are compared with the rest of the Canon. Just look at this thread. Easily-refuted errors that have been proliferated include the claim that the āyatanas cease but the indriyas do not, that there are only five indriyas, that a Buddha has no sense of internal/external due to his lack of a referent, and that Arhat's do not experience vedanā. Some of them were immediately retracted when it became obvious how wrong they were, but all of them were initially cooked-up to support this untenable modernism.

Arhats have vedanā. They have contact. They have six internal sense bases. This is incontrovertible when looking outside of just the 12-link formula. If you only avail yourself of the classical 12-link formula and its cessation mode, of course you miss all sorts of vital context present in the rest of the Canon.

[asahi]

What is substantiating this comment other than hot air and bluster? Got Sutta?

Well , actually i do have but i am going to keep it for myself . But i dont think it is going to bother you .

Not that you've shown. All you've pointed out is that you don't like what has been said.

I did , repeatedly but i dont think you bothered either . Nevertheless , you are welcome .

[asahi]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

You might not like that interpretation of phassa, but so far you haven't provided a coherent alternative.
Just repeating "the meeting of the three" explains nothing about the nature and purpose of phassa in the teachings.

No , it is not about liking disliking .
I just gone through your same posting over sutta central , not that i didnt try but you also met with stumbling block over there .
So , i guess either you are missing the point ie misunderstanding or somehow get stucked somewhere in your head , no offense .

[Spiny Norman]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

You might not like that interpretation of phassa, but so far you haven't provided a coherent alternative.
Just repeating "the meeting of the three" explains nothing about the nature and purpose of phassa in the teachings.

No , it is not about liking disliking .
I just gone through your same posting over sutta central , not that i didnt try but you also met with stumbling block over there .
So , i guess either you are missing the point ie misunderstanding or somehow get stucked somewhere in your head , no offense .

You still haven't explained the meaning and purpose of phassa.

[PeterC86]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

You might not like that interpretation of phassa, but so far you haven't provided a coherent alternative.
Just repeating "the meeting of the three" explains nothing about the nature and purpose of phassa in the teachings.

The meeting of the three indicates that there is no "self"/ātman that participates in either the three-way contact or the two-way contact, contrary to the doctrines of Ñāṇavīra-inspired modernists. It is a pseudo-mechanical process that happens regardless if one holds to self-view or not, because it is irrespective of self-view. Contact is never directly dependent upon self-view in the Buddha's suttas, and it is a typical slight-of-hand to suggest that it is.

Who then is experiencing the contact?

You may feel that these modernist exegeses make less assumptions, but they make more errors than assumptions. Certainly, the traditional teaching presumes that the practitioner is engaging with the living tradition of Buddhism as it has been transmitted over the ages, not trying to reconstruct a more pure Buddhism based on Protestant scriptural hermeneutics and the practitioner's internal culturally-conditioned sense of what is reasonable and what is common sense.

These "assumptions" are simply how Buddhists have, since ancient times, actually interpreted the highly ambiguous words of the EBTs. The assumptions of modernists on the other hand produce all kinds of easily-refuted errors when their teachings on DO are compared with the rest of the Canon. Just look at this thread. Easily-refuted errors that have been proliferated include the claim that the āyatanas cease but the indriyas do not, that there are only five indriyas, and that Arhat's do not experience vedanā. Some of them were immediately retracted when it became obvious how wrong they were, but all of them were initially cooked-up to support this untenable modernism.

Arhats have vedanā. They have contact. They have six internal sense bases. This is incontrovertible when looking outside of just the 12-link formula. If you only avail yourself of the classical 12-link formula and its cessation mode, of course you miss all sorts of vital context present in the rest of the Canon.

This is a rather long version of Coemgenu's standard finishing post rant.

[Ceisiwr]

When you took jati and express it as self identity , it just could not match up with aging , sickness and death .

When there is no self-identity, then aging and death cease to be a problem, right?
The suffering here results primarily from the assumption of "my body". See the Arrow Sutta.

There is still ageing, sickness and death when there is emptiness. Realising emptiness doesn’t abolish getting the flu, whilst alive. What is gone immediately for Buddhas and Arahants is any emotional suffering on account of the 1st dart, but the 1st dart is itself suffering too. If the Buddha was totally free from all dukkha immediately upon awakening he would simply vanish. Furthermore, if he was totally free from both darts upon awakening why then did he have to enter the Signless to find some relief from physical pain? It’s completely redundant if he was free from pain already, which is dukkha. Only at the end of their life span are Buddhas and Arahants finally free from pain, mental or physical.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Asahi,

Eitherway , your take on Paticcasamuppada of one life model appear to be not inline with the Buddha's teachings , imo

Imo, I don't call it a "one life model" because it's not about "one life".

Per the suttas, it's about "dependent origination and dependently originated phenomena" (SN 12.20) and "the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering" (SN 12.15).

Mostly, it is not about "one life" because it is timeless (akaliko). It needn't be called "one life", simply because the commentarial interpretation abandoned and walked away from the akaliko quality of the Dhamma as it pegged their nidanas out over time, attributing factors to the past, present and future.

Metta,
Paul.

While your interpretation makes a lot of assumptions, the 3-lives model makes even more, IMO.

What assumptions are those?