Vinnana v. Phassa

[Coëmgenu]

Who is actually reading these texts and who is reading them with rose-tinted glasses is the issue, and furthermore who is actually interfacing with the Dhamma as inherited by the Saṃgha and whose Saṃgha-inheritance is trustworthy.

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma? “Picking a side” is a sixteenth of the battle. Doing the work and confirming that your pick was right is everything else. Unless the affiliation is all a person is interested in. And, whether you like it or not, what is being discussed on this forum is mostly about picking sides. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t being seeing so many displays of discomfort on account of reading what is not preferred.

So, it may be an issue for you…

No need for nasty ad homs, thank you. I've not been hired to do PR for a school. That is very foolish to suggest. If "affiliation" were all I was interested in I wouldn't be posting on a Theravādin forum.

If you think I'm discomforted, perhaps you just can't deal with actual sustained disagreement.

I said words to the effect of "it's a matter of who," indicating the possibility that the traditionalists wear rose-tinted glasses. You went on the attack against me. Who is being over-sensitive and discomforted?

[SDC]

We could also refer to the many suttas which state that all forms of vedanā are suffering. Pain is the 1st dart, grief the 2nd to give a brief example from above. The 1st dart is still a dart

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

[Ceisiwr]

We could also refer to the many suttas which state that all forms of vedanā are suffering. Pain is the 1st dart, grief the 2nd to give a brief example from above. The 1st dart is still a dart

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

[Ceisiwr]

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma?

What is being argued for is the non-sectarian early Buddhist teaching. The counter is a very modern and sectarian interpretation, which finds little basis in the earliest non-sectarian texts. On top of this the proposition is being made, either subtly or overtly, that all of the early Buddhists just got it completely wrong but Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Ñāṇamoli (with a dash of French Existentialism) finally managed to understand it all after 2500 years. Or, even worse, only Peter with his rather poor scepticism has understood it since the Buddha died.

[SDC]

Who is actually reading these texts and who is reading them with rose-tinted glasses is the issue, and furthermore who is actually interfacing with the Dhamma as inherited by the Saṃgha and whose Saṃgha-inheritance is trustworthy.

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma? “Picking a side” is a sixteenth of the battle. Doing the work and confirming that your pick was right is everything else. Unless the affiliation is all a person is interested in. And, whether you like it or not, what is being discussed on this forum is mostly about picking sides. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t being seeing so many displays of discomfort on account of reading what is not preferred.

So, it may be an issue for you…

No need for nasty ad homs, thank you. I've not been hired to do PR for a school. That is very foolish to suggest. If "affiliation" were all I was interested in I wouldn't be posting on a Theravādin forum.

If you think I'm discomforted, perhaps you just can't deal with actual sustained disagreement.

I’ve been dealing with it for years and that hasn’t prevented us from having a meaningful dialogue. You do seem particularly off put as of late, but my apologies if I’m reading you wrongly. Typically when a person is interested in the topic at hand they don’t sidestep into a discussion about how participants are interpreting texts. The mere fact that we have different ideas is simply illustrating that we do in fact have different understandings, and that should be a testament to the individual’s efforts and not a reason pinpoint fault, which is how I took your post at the top of the page. If you’re concerned about trustworthiness, that’s your problem. Yes, we each better share that concern, but only because it is an indication that we don’t have the right understanding, but not because we are uncomfortable with someone else’s perspective. Again, I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you, but I’m not sure how else you expected that post to be interpreted.

[Coëmgenu]

Typically when a person is interested in the topic at hand they don’t sidestep into a discussion about how participants are interpreting texts.

This discussion is about interpretation of texts. So many requests for suttas have been made in it. How can I "sidestep" onto the topic?

[Spiny Norman]

We could also refer to the many suttas which state that all forms of vedanā are suffering. Pain is the 1st dart, grief the 2nd to give a brief example from above. The 1st dart is still a dart

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

The Arahant no longer clings to conditioned dhammas, and is therefore liberated from suffering.
Clinging aggregates have ceased for the Arahant, therefore dukkha has ceased.

[Ceisiwr]

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

The Arahant no longer clings to conditioned dhammas, and is therefore liberated from suffering.
Clinging aggregates have ceased for the Arahant, therefore dukkha has ceased.

What follows clinging in dependent origination? You still have not answered. With regards to the second sentence, am I to take that to mean the Buddha had no aggregates when walking around and eating or he just did not cling to them?

[SDC]

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma?

What is being argued for is the non-sectarian early Buddhist teaching. The counter is a very modern and sectarian interpretation, which finds little basis in the earliest non-sectarian texts. On top of this the proposition is being made, either subtly or overtly, that all of the early Buddhists just got it completely wrong but Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Ñāṇamoli (with a dash of French Existentialism) finally managed to understand it all after 2500 years. Or, even worse, only Peter and his rather poor scepticism has understood it since the Buddha died.

That you think this is worthy of your effort is your choice, and I’m sorry to say that I am not involved with the Dhamma nor a member of this forum to put such an effort on display. Take it or leave, but I’m being completely honest when I say that. I am not here to set history rightly. I’m here to see if my understanding can hold up to the scrutiny of other ideas and to exchange perspectives (both of which force me to be extremely honest with myself about what I do and do not understand), and I’ve been lucky to grab a few friends along the way. That’s it. I couldn’t care less how the establishment benefits or declines from anything I do. If I’m dead wrong in my understanding, it is my hope that I didn’t declare anything in a way that didn’t encourage the reader to look into the matter on their own. If any readers benefit, it pleases me that I could be of some help.

[Spiny Norman]

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

The Arahant no longer clings to conditioned dhammas, and is therefore liberated from suffering.
Clinging aggregates have ceased for the Arahant, therefore dukkha has ceased.

What follows clinging in dependent origination? You still have not answered. With regards to the second sentence, am I to take that to mean the Buddha had no aggregates when walking around and eating or he just did not cling to them?

You're not listening.

[Ceisiwr]

The Arahant no longer clings to conditioned dhammas, and is therefore liberated from suffering.
Clinging aggregates have ceased for the Arahant, therefore dukkha has ceased.

What follows clinging in dependent origination? You still have not answered. With regards to the second sentence, am I to take that to mean the Buddha had no aggregates when walking around and eating or he just did not cling to them?

You're not listening.

I’m listening, but so far what you are saying is vague and makes little sense. You are however dodging my questions.

[SDC]

Typically when a person is interested in the topic at hand they don’t sidestep into a discussion about how participants are interpreting texts.

This discussion is about interpretation of texts. So many requests for suttas have been made in it. How can I "sidestep" onto the topic?

To question a right or a wrong reading is to imply there is an extent external criteria to do so, but as far as I understand it, right view is the only gauge available. Whether or not someone is reading in the way we prefer or with what presume are rose-colored glasses is not a public issue. Of course you are free to say whatever you want. I’m just explaining why I took issue with it and found it peripheral to the current topic.

[PeterC86]

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma?

What is being argued for is the non-sectarian early Buddhist teaching. The counter is a very modern and sectarian interpretation, which finds little basis in the earliest non-sectarian texts. On top of this the proposition is being made, either subtly or overtly, that all of the early Buddhists just got it completely wrong but Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Ñāṇamoli (with a dash of French Existentialism) finally managed to understand it all after 2500 years. Or, even worse, only Peter with his rather poor scepticism has understood it since the Buddha died.

This for me is completely irrelevant. The only relevant thing for me to be on this forum is to share the buddhadhamma as I have experienced it to be liberating. This experience is in line with the understanding of Nagarjuna, those who have understood Nagarjuna, others who have understood the Buddhadhamma layed out in the Pali Canon behind the plaster of Theravada doctrine, or others who came to this realization by themselves.

The only thing which would seem relevant to me if I was an unawakened person on this forum, was to figure out what the buddhadhamma is i.e. attain Nibbana, and not follow a parade of people living in suffering following some interpretation that is widespread. But everyone their own.

[SDC]

We could also refer to the many suttas which state that all forms of vedanā are suffering. Pain is the 1st dart, grief the 2nd to give a brief example from above. The 1st dart is still a dart

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

I would’ve turned away years ago if I didn’t see signs of being able to be untouched by the vale of tears.

[SDC]

Have you been assigned to do PR for some school’s interpretation of the Dhamma?

What is being argued for is the non-sectarian early Buddhist teaching. The counter is a very modern and sectarian interpretation, which finds little basis in the earliest non-sectarian texts. On top of this the proposition is being made, either subtly or overtly, that all of the early Buddhists just got it completely wrong but Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Ñāṇamoli (with a dash of French Existentialism) finally managed to understand it all after 2500 years. Or, even worse, only Peter with his rather poor scepticism has understood it since the Buddha died.

This for me is completely irrelevant. The only relevant thing for me to be on this forum is to share the buddhadhamma as I have experienced it to be liberating. This experience is in line with the understanding of Nagarjuna, those who have understood Nagarjuna, others who have understood the Buddhadhamma layed out in the Pali Canon behind the plaster of Theravada doctrine, or others who came to this realization by themselves.

The only thing which would seem relevant to me if I was an unawakened person on this forum, was to figure out what the buddhadhamma is i.e. attain Nibbana, and not follow a parade of people living in suffering following some interpretation that is widespread. But everyone their own.

Peter, you’ve made so many categorical statements on this forum it’s shocking. It’s as if you have no fear of wrongdoing. I couldn’t imagine being so cavalier.