Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

polarbuddha101 wrote:It seems to me that everyone is making too big of a deal about a book. It is a book attempting to explain a particular bhikkhu's perspective on a particular subject. It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go. It doesn't matter an inkling how you want to define your terms as long as you have enough terms and meaning contained within them to develop and fulfill the characteristics that the buddha wanted us to. If you want sati to mean just remembrance with sampojana (I know I'm spelling it wrong) meaning awareness/alertness that is fine and it is also fine if you want sati to mean remembrance and awareness. Who gives a rat's patootey about the difference considering the fact that both interpretations ultimately admit that remembrance and awareness are necessary. If everyone wants to argue about semantics then I encourage everyone to go become linguists and make that your life's mission, otherwise don't worry, be happy.

danieLion wrote:Your phrase, "...the fact that both interpretations ultimately admit that remembrance and awareness are necessary..." is what I've been "arguing" for and what Dmytro is "arguing" against. ... Dmytro's not the only one being "flexible."

polarbuddha101 wrote:It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go.

Dmytro wrote:Hi Daniel,

I don't see any sense in continuing the discussion with you.
Maybe we'll talk some other day and I would be able to share the beauty of Buddha's teaching in his own Pali words.

Best wishes, Dmytro

polarbuddha101 wrote:It seems to me that everyone is making too big of a deal about a book. It is a book attempting to explain a particular bhikkhu's perspective on a particular subject. It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go. It doesn't matter an inkling how you want to define your terms as long as you have enough terms and meaning contained within them to develop and fulfill the characteristics that the buddha wanted us to. If you want sati to mean just remembrance with sampojana (I know I'm spelling it wrong) meaning awareness/alertness that is fine and it is also fine if you want sati to mean remembrance and awareness. Who gives a rat's patootey about the difference considering the fact that both interpretations ultimately admit that remembrance and awareness are necessary. If everyone wants to argue about semantics then I encourage everyone to go become linguists and make that your life's mission, otherwise don't worry, be happy.

Dmytro wrote:

danieLion wrote:Your phrase, "...the fact that both interpretations ultimately admit that remembrance and awareness are necessary..." is what I've been "arguing" for and what Dmytro is "arguing" against. ... Dmytro's not the only one being "flexible."

Seems like this virtual Dmytro leads an active life on his own What a lexical definitionalist!

polarbuddha101 wrote:It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go.

Well said, Polarbuddha.

danieLion wrote:1) By my reading of the suttas (to date) sati has two functions: memory/recollection and present moment awareness. Both are strongly represented in the discourses. Thanissaro seems to have a selection bias and seems to be committing a suppressed correlative fallacy.

2) Even if "non-reactivity" is not sati by Thanissaro's standards/biases/fallacies, non-reactivity is taught by the Buddha in a variety of other teachings.

3) "Non-reactivity" need not be mutually exclusive with memory/recollection or present moment awareness.

4) Thanissaro appears to have quite and ax to grind but I can only speculate as to why (and if they're valid reasons).

Buckwheat wrote:

danieLion wrote:1) By my reading of the suttas (to date) sati has two functions: memory/recollection and present moment awareness. Both are strongly represented in the discourses. Thanissaro seems to have a selection bias and seems to be committing a suppressed correlative fallacy.

2) Even if "non-reactivity" is not sati by Thanissaro's standards/biases/fallacies, non-reactivity is taught by the Buddha in a variety of other teachings.

3) "Non-reactivity" need not be mutually exclusive with memory/recollection or present moment awareness.

4) Thanissaro appears to have quite and ax to grind but I can only speculate as to why (and if they're valid reasons).

From this post, I thought you were trying to say Sati included "Non-reactivity".

polarbuddha101 wrote:It seems to me that everyone is making too big of a deal about a book. It is a book attempting to explain a particular bhikkhu's perspective on a particular subject. It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go.

danieLion wrote:

Buckwheat wrote:

danieLion wrote:1) By my reading of the suttas (to date) sati has two functions: memory/recollection and present moment awareness. Both are strongly represented in the discourses. Thanissaro seems to have a selection bias and seems to be committing a suppressed correlative fallacy.

2) Even if "non-reactivity" is not sati by Thanissaro's standards/biases/fallacies, non-reactivity is taught by the Buddha in a variety of other teachings.

3) "Non-reactivity" need not be mutually exclusive with memory/recollection or present moment awareness.

4) Thanissaro appears to have quite and ax to grind but I can only speculate as to why (and if they're valid reasons).

From this post, I thought you were trying to say Sati included "Non-reactivity".

I was freely expressing and exchanging ideas, not trying engage in precise defining. As Dmytro et al would define it formally, non-reactivity can't, as you say, be included in sati. But that just highlights the problems with definitionalism. I'm exploring relationships and patterns, not static meaning. If we stipulate that our definition of sati is unstable and dynamic, then I'm for defining. Otherwise, I've no interest in it (and don't think the Buddha did that much either).

Thanissaro's intellectual background is crucial to understanding what ax he's grinding and why he's grinding it so hard. It has very little to do with Buddhism, per se.

tiltbillings wrote:

polarbuddha101 wrote:It seems to me that everyone is making too big of a deal about a book. It is a book attempting to explain a particular bhikkhu's perspective on a particular subject. It isn't an inquisition. Thanissaro isn't trying to personally defame everybody's beloved teachers and I think everyone just needs to relax and let it go.

When you have one of the major online authorities on Theravada making unfortunate and negative comments as he did in this book, it deserves a considered response. And whether or not he is intentionally trying to defame anyone, his comments are unskilful and potentially quite harmful.

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

This is why we always have to be open to whatever comes up in the course of the meditation - whatever insights, whatever realizations, whatever issues arise - because a lot of times the things that come up are more valuable than what you thought you were looking for.

You focus on the basic technique of keeping with the breath, and eventually you stumble over some really important veins in the mind. They may be veins of gold, veins of diamond, or an old layer of garbage that got laid down sometime in the past. But the basic technique is just being here, being observant, watching what happens,...

Billymac29 wrote:

This is why we always have to be open to whatever comes up in the course of the meditation - whatever insights, whatever realizations, whatever issues arise - because a lot of times the things that come up are more valuable than what you thought you were looking for.

You focus on the basic technique of keeping with the breath, and eventually you stumble over some really important veins in the mind. They may be veins of gold, veins of diamond, or an old layer of garbage that got laid down sometime in the past. But the basic technique is just being here, being observant, watching what happens,...