sense bases disappear ?

[Ceisiwr]

Whatever. I prefer the waves to your endless theories.

It's quite the claim, to say you have dropped the sense of self. People making rather large claims for themselves is the norm here these days though I guess.

I'm not claiming anything. Just suggesting that talking about how we experience things might be more useful than endless sutta references.

Personal experiences matter little here. You can't have a discussion based on "my experience is x". You also did make a claim.

[Spiny Norman]

Personal experiences matter little here.

Therein lies the problem.

[Ceisiwr]

Personal experiences matter little here.

Therein lies the problem.

Not really. All you get is "my personal experience is x", "oh yeah, well my personal experience is y!" Shared texts are the common reference point, not personal experiences.

[Spiny Norman]

Personal experiences matter little here.

Therein lies the problem.

Not really. All you get is "my personal experience is x", "oh yeah, well my personal experience is y!" Shared texts are the common reference point, not personal experiences.

Nobody agrees on the texts. Personal experiences are at least authentic.

[Ceisiwr]

Therein lies the problem.

Not really. All you get is "my personal experience is x", "oh yeah, well my personal experience is y!" Shared texts are the common reference point, not personal experiences.

Nobody agrees on the texts. Personal experiences are at least authentic.

You'll get more agreement than relying upon your subjective personal experiences. You can't have a rational discussion based around your personal experiences.

[cappuccino]

I doubt you have ever really lost the sense of me & mine, to be frank.

No self is still a view about the self


In contrast to regarding all … not self

[Spiny Norman]

Not really. All you get is "my personal experience is x", "oh yeah, well my personal experience is y!" Shared texts are the common reference point, not personal experiences.

Nobody agrees on the texts. Personal experiences are at least authentic.

You'll get more agreement than relying upon your subjective personal experiences. You can't have a rational discussion based around your personal experiences.

All discussion here is based around personal experiences.

[Ceisiwr]

Nobody agrees on the texts. Personal experiences are at least authentic.

You'll get more agreement than relying upon your subjective personal experiences. You can't have a rational discussion based around your personal experiences.

All discussion here is based around personal experiences.

I never base my arguments upon my experiences, whatever they are. I make arguments supported by texts my opponent also holds in common with me, as an authority.

[cappuccino]

All discussion here is based around personal experiences.

My comments are based on the teaching

[Spiny Norman]

All discussion here is based around personal experiences.

My comments are based on the teaching

Nonsense.

[cappuccino]

Nonsense.

The teaching is not nonsense

[PeterC86]

Does this mean that, in a conventional sense, instead of understanding evolution being the workings of nature as to how human life came to be, you propose that human life is based on ignorance, and that our physical bodies somehow got fabricated out of ignorance, thereby denying genetics, metabolism, and all other relevant biological processes? How would this go? Maybe the universe came out of ignorance too? You see the problem of this belief?

I see a problem in your caricature of it, sure. I don't have to start denying evolution or genetics to propose what I am saying, since what I am saying is that consciousness in the womb arises due to past intentions and, furthermore, that our physical form and mentality cannot develop into our body with it's senses and mind without consciousness.

Yes, so to you, human life originated from intention, which is conditioned by ignorance right? That is what I explained above, but I also already elaborated a bit further as to what such a view would entail. First there was ignorance, then came intention, then came consciousness, but this consciousness needs to arise in a womb, so this consciousness created a womb, because the womb could not be formed without consciousness, etc.

Ignorance is dependently originated, and if this is not understood, a condition for ignorance needs to be found, and if so, one will further dwell in samsara, endlessly pondering about 'kamma'.

The origin of ignorance are the hindrances.

“I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances." - AN 10.61

Yes, so to you, ignorance is not dependently originated based on the other links in the 12 links explanation of DO, so therefore you need an origin of ignorance.

And from what attainment are you elaborating exactly? Your view cannot be verified in the here-and-now, it is a mere belief in Nibbana 'after life', as all dukkha could be explained as 'old kamma'.

What is known immediately is if greed, hatred and delusion are there or not. What is known immediately for the Buddhas and the Arahants is the absence of greed, hatred and delusion.

And you know this how?

From that knowledge they never suffer mentally again and know that at death the whole pain of existence too comes to an end.

So they have foreseen what happens after death? Yes, according to your belief, life is intrinsically suffering, from which one is supposedly released at death.

So the problem of your view, besides that it is denying evolution, genetics, metabolism, science, and so forth, is that it proposes ignorance as condition for the entire universe, on top of that it is not verifiable in this lifetime. Which also begs the rethorical question, as to how Buddha could know that, after he exhaled his last breath, that he was released from whatever it was what made him came to be?

Nowhere have I argued that ignorance is the basis for trees, or asteroids.

Okay, but where are those intentions and ignorance, that created human life, coming from?

The Buddha knew that his life was the final one, as he knew the conditionality of consciousness. One understands how consciousness get's stuck on and follows signs, and how without following signs consciousness does not become established again. A rebirth-linking consciousness, following signs, does not arise.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

So please elaborate how you think that your view applies to reality, and that it is not a ridiculously made-up belief in ignorance as cause of the universe and everything, one religiously clings to, through which one sees life in its entirety as suffering.

Well simply put that isn't my view, bar the part about life being intrinsically suffering.

Well, where is the initial ignorance and intention coming from that created consciousness, which created life?

Alternatively, you can let go of your belief, and get liberated in this lifetime. If one understands DO, one doesn't believe in anything, because nothing can ultimately be known. So, if there is a sign in your mind, anything that could be described as a cause for something, you're not understanding DO.

Your understanding in this area is very, very limited Peter both in terms of the ultimate meaning and of the gradual path towards it.

From your view I can understand how this would seem so.

[PeterC86]

You'll get more agreement than relying upon your subjective personal experiences. You can't have a rational discussion based around your personal experiences.

All discussion here is based around personal experiences.

I never base my arguments upon my experiences, whatever they are. I make arguments supported by texts my opponent also holds in common with me, as an authority.

Wow.. okay.., so to you the texts are an authority by itself, which do not have to be verified by personal experiences, because what is stated holds truth even if it cannot be verified, because it is written. And anyone who differs from your understanding of these texts is an opponent. At least I understand how you came to your belief, but I am done discussing with you based on this ignoring of personal experience. If you don't verify what you read in your experience, you can come to believe in anything, please take this as a kind offer. All the best to you!

[cappuccino]

because it is written.

Faith…

[Ceisiwr]

Yes, so to you, human life originated from intention, which is conditioned by ignorance right? That is what I explained above, but I also already elaborated a bit further as to what such a view would entail. First there was ignorance, then came intention, then came consciousness, but this consciousness needs to arise in a womb, so this consciousness created a womb, because the womb could not be formed without consciousness, etc.

That isn't what you explained above. What you said above was that what I am saying is in someway in opposition to the theory of genetics. It isn't. In the Visuddhimagga it talks of consciousness generated matter, but I don't see any need for such a theory. Rather consciousness is the basis for the egg to develop into your body. The womb was already there, as part of the mother. So too were the eggs.

Yes, so to you, ignorance is not dependently originated based on the other links in the 12 links explanation of DO, so therefore you need an origin of ignorance.

Ignorance is the root condition. As a state of not-knowing it is nourished by the hindrances, since they block vision. The hindrances are another way of talking about the āsavā, one of which is ignorance. These are different ways of presenting the truth.

And you know this how?

It's what the suttas and, from what I know, the āgamas say which is what you should be concerned with rather than trying to guess if I have any attainments or not.

So they have foreseen what happens after death? Yes, according to your belief, life is intrinsically suffering, from which one is supposedly released at death.

They haven't foreseen it. They know it. You don't have to see something directly to have knowledge. Regarding life, it is suffering if you haven't noticed. You can't expect to generate dissatisfaction and detachment with the entire universe unless you see that any form of existence, anywhere, is suffering.

Okay, but where are those intentions and ignorance, that created human life, coming from?

At the point of death consciousness will follow intention, say lust for more life for a lustful intention. The same for aversion and delusion. Their consciousness will follow signs.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

That's ok. It took me a while.

Well, where is the initial ignorance and intention coming from that created consciousness, which created life?

A first point can't be found. When there is ignorance, there are the āsavā and hindrances. When there are the hindrances and āsavā there is ignorance.

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being united with the unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?”

“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four oceans.”

“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve undergone the death of a mother … father … brother … sister … son … daughter … loss of relatives … loss of wealth … or loss through illness. From being united with the unloved and separated from the loved, the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans.

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/suja ... ript=latin