Critique of "jhana among Western converts"

[KevinSolway]

Your "Buddhdhamma" has no basis in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

You don't know that, so you're just making things up. Try making an actual rational argument.

No, it's something found by direct knowledge.

Directly from the suttas.

Direct knowledge of reality is not dependent on interpretations of mere words written in books.

I was asking questions

No, you weren't asking questions, you were making false statements.

The Buddha did not back up his statements with suttas.

You are not the Buddha

I didn't say I was. I said that the Buddha did not back up his statements with suttas. This is because it is goes against the Buddhadhamma to back up your statements with suttas. The Buddha didn't do it, and nor should we.

According to your reasoning, since the Buddha didn't support his statements with reference to suttas, the only conclusion is that he was making stuff up.

Again, you are not the Buddha

You are claiming that if a person doesn't refer to suttas then the only possibility is that they are making things up.

According to your reasoning then the Buddha was making things up.

Your reasoning is faulty.

there is no basis here for taking your claim of "direct knowledge"

If you are unable to see the basis for my claim of direct knowledge then there's nothing I can do about that. Get used to it.

I don't expect you to be able to do anything you are unable to do.

So far you have given us your beliefs about rebirth

No, I have given you solid reasons for things that I directly know to be true, but as I've pointed out, you are unable to follow lines of reasoning.

[KevinSolway]

where should we find this example?

Since we cannot know whether a fully enlightened Buddha ever existed, you need to create that pattern in your mind.

[DNS]

All these words don't need to be interpreted literally.
It is the nature of religious texts that they should not be taken literally. They are too profound to be taken literally.

Why not? It is as blunt as blunt can be and no amount of wiggling of words by you can change it. Never taken literally? How convenient, so you can make any interpretation that suits your pre-conceived ideas. The Buddha specifically stated that some are taken directly and some by inference, but not all.

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose
meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he
who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose
meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata.
Anguttara Nikaya 2.25

The Bible speaks of Adam and Even in the garden of Eden. Do you really think that story is supposed to be taken literally?
It's not meant to be taken literally.

This is a Buddhist board, not a Christian or Jewish one. Why don't you ask the Christians and Jews? Many of them will tell you that it is taken literally.

In a "past life" I belonged to the "clan" of university students. There I had such a name, such an appearance, such was my food, such was my pleasure and pain. That life lasted for about 200 years (five). Leaving that life, I entered the "clan" of working people. There I had such a name, such an appearance, such was my food, such was my pleasure and pain. That life lasted for about 100 years (two). Passing away thence, I re-arose here.

Now that has got to be the worst explanation of that sutta reference ever. All this talk about providing a logical, rational argument, not resorting to logical fallacies and yet you have not even remotely come close to making one yourself.

[KevinSolway]

Now that has got to be the worst explanation of that sutta reference ever.

Shantideva says, "It is another person who dies".

In other words, we are not the same person for two consecutive moments.

Are you claiming to know better than Shantideva? Was Shantideva wrong? Give us your reasons.

Your opinions are worthless if you cannot back them up with reasons.

You have not even remotely come close to making one yourself.

I have made several arguments against the delusion of literal rebirth. My main argument is based on the nature of cause and effect itself. Why don't you try to counter my argument with reasons?

[DNS]

You have not made any logical or rational arguments against the idea of rebirth. Your only appeal has been to straw men and red herrings, which you claim you do not do. You deny that Buddha even existed. Then there is no point to look at anything in Buddhism including the Pali Canon which is permeated with talk about a person known as Buddha, the awakened one. If Buddha said he was named Steve in this life, died and then got reborn in Guatemala and was named Pedro. You would say that is metaphorical and he meant that he legally changed his name in court and moved to Guatemala.

There is no argument to counter, because you have made no argument.

[DAWN]

Pedro

[tiltbillings]

Your "Buddhdhamma" has no basis in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

You don't know that, so you're just making things up.

Your words themselves make my point.

Try making an actual rational argument.

I have asked you about your claims, and what have you resorted to in response? "I, Kevin Solway, know what I know because I have direct knowledge [read: I am awakened] and you don't [read: and you are not]."

No, it's something found by direct knowledge.

Directly from the suttas.

Direct knowledge of reality is not dependent on interpretations of mere words written in books.

Your claim about human rebirth comes from the suttas, which shows that you are more than a bit disingenuous in your claim of not relying on the suttas.

I was asking questions

No, you weren't asking questions, you were making false statements.

I asked you in various ways to show your support for your claim, but we learn you have no support except your "direct knowledge."

The Buddha did not back up his statements with suttas.

You are not the Buddha

I didn't say I was. I said that the Buddha did not back up his statements with suttas. This is because it is goes against the Buddhadhamma to back up your statements with suttas. The Buddha didn't do it, and nor should we.

The Buddha taught what he knew, what he experienced, but you? You are claiming that what you are teaching is Buddhism, but you show no evidence that that is so, and you pointedly refuse to. What we do see instead is Kevinism, which you claim is Buddhadhamma.

According to your reasoning, since the Buddha didn't support his statements with reference to suttas, the only conclusion is that he was making stuff up.

Again, you are not the Buddha

You are claiming that if a person doesn't refer to suttas then the only possibility is that they are making things up.

The point is that you are unwilling -- far more likely unable -- to tie your claim of awakening, direct knowledge, to what the Buddha taught. And interestingly, you work rather hard to deny any credibility to the Buddha's teachings, thinking that it allows you to dismiss what others have to say that contradicts your supposed direct knowledge.

According to your reasoning then the Buddha was making things up.

Your reasoning is faulty.

And you make my point.

there is no basis here for taking your claim of "direct knowledge"

If you are unable to see the basis for my claim of direct knowledge then there's nothing I can do about that. Get used to it.

I don't expect you to be able to do anything you are unable to do.

I do see the basis for your claim of "direct knowledge." Delusion, ego, pride.

So far you have given us your beliefs about rebirth

No, I have given you solid reasons for things that I directly know to be true, but as I've pointed out, you are unable to follow lines of reasoning.

Poor anyone who does not accept that Kevin Solway has direct knowledge. Do tell us the nature of your direct knowledge. Does it allow you to read Pali as you claimed it could for for your buddy Quinn?

[tiltbillings]

Now that has got to be the worst explanation of that sutta reference ever.

Shantideva says, "It is another person who dies".

In other words, we are not the same person for two consecutive moments.

Are you claiming to know better than Shantideva? Was Shantideva wrong? Give us your reasons.

Your opinions are worthless if you cannot back them up with reasons.

And now you are appealing to Shantideva, but never mind the actual context that Shantideva wrote what he wrote.

[Ben]

Unless you make a rational argument, then you are simply making pointless statements of faith - which won't go anywhere.

Its not a statement of faith, Kevin.
Its a statement based on evidence. The Buddha taught the doctrine of rebirth. As others here have said - sometimes he referred to rebirth in the metaphysical sense but he also referred to rebirth in the literal sense.
Your reason and rational argument is nothing but a fragile scaffolding for your own attachment to view.

since you can still be moral.

No doubt, there are very many people in the world who are very moral who do not accept rebirth.

I disagree. It's impossible to be moral without understanding cause and effect (and rebirth).

So you are saying that one can only be moral if one subscribes to the metaphorical rebirth model. I wonder what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would say about that?
It certainly doesn't conform with my experience and I imagine the vast majority of people here.

when you understand that you are the creation of the actions of others, and that others are the creation of your own actions.

Again, this is inconsistent with the Buddhadhamma.

It's perfectly consistent with the Dhamma. Things are not inherently existent. All things are caused by other things. There is no such thing as a self-caused thing.

And here we see in your rationalization cherry-picking to support your own view. I'd rather not enter that rabbit hole.

You should provide some sort of rational argument, rather than repeating articles of faith.

Rational argument and reason can be used to justify all sorts of nonsense and drivel. As I said earlier - the Buddha warned against the very same vacuous sophistry that you engage in.

Perhaps Kevin you can provide us with a statement from the Buddha to the effects of "What I mean by rebirth is metaphorical rebirth and ONLY metaphorical rebirth - literal (post-mortem) rebirth is wrong view" If you can do that, spoken by the Buddha in plain language that does not need to be reinterpreted through the prism of your own predelictions of virew - then I will be happy to reconsider my understanding.

[KevinSolway]

Your "Buddhdhamma" has no basis in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

You don't know the teachings of the Buddha, so you are unqualified to say such things.

what have you resorted to in response? "I, Kevin Solway, know what I know because I have direct knowledge

I have never said that literal rebirth is false because I have direct knowledge.

I have given you solid reasons why literal rebirth is false, that any reasonable person can follow. For example, I have given you reasons why literal rebirth is false based on the nature of cause and effect.

You are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I hear nothing".

Your claim about human rebirth comes from the suttas

I've already explained that it doesn't. It comes from direct knowledge.

You are not qualified to say where it comes from.

you have no support except your "direct knowledge."

I only rely on my reason for support, such as my reasoned argument from cause and effect. If you want to dispute my reasoned argument from cause and effect then you are welcome to do so.

You work rather hard to deny any credibility to the Buddha's teachings

You don't know what the Buddha's teaching were, and you don't even know that the Buddha existed, so stop pretending that you know things that you don't actually know.

Poor anyone who does not accept that Kevin Solway has direct knowledge.

Again, I don't ask anyone to accept that I have direct knowledge. And again, you are making things up. I only ask that people consider my reasoned arguments, such as my argument from cause and effect. If you can't respond to my reasoned arguments with reasons then you have nothing of value to contribute.

you are appealing to Shantideva

I'm not appealing to Shantideva, since Shantideva may have been entirely wrong.

I'm interested to know whether David N. Snyder thinks that he knows better than Shantideva (and Buddhadasa, etc), since he seems to think that he knows all about it.

[KevinSolway]

The Buddha taught the doctrine of rebirth.

There is a doctrine of rebirth in the scriptures, and that doctrine is interpreted in different ways by different people.

Some people interpret it literally, and some interpret it sensibly.

Your reason and rational argument is nothing but a fragile scaffolding

Your belief in literal rebirth is nothing but a fragile scaffolding.

Your opinions are worthless unless you are going to back them up with reasons.

So you are saying that one can only be moral if one subscribes to the metaphorical rebirth model. I wonder what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would say about that?

An understanding of rebirth is an understanding of the cause of suffering and delusion, and how to bring suffering and delusion to an end, through cause and effect.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "rebirth", or what label you pin on it.

Understanding rebirth has nothing to do with "subscribing to a model". Rather, It is about understanding reality, and action based on that understanding.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins probably know a lot more about these things than you do, so you shouldn't scoff.

It certainly doesn't conform with my experience and I imagine the vast majority of people here.

Appealing to numbers of people is the fallacy of ad populum, and goes against the Buddhadhamma.

sophistry

If there is sophistry anywhere then you should be able to point it out.

For example, if there is anything wrong with my argument from cause and effect, then you should be able to point it out. You cannot do so.

provide us with a statement from the Buddha

No matter what any scripture says, you will interpret it to fit your own personal opinions.

[daverupa]

I have given you solid reasons

reminded me of

"Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought

[LonesomeYogurt]

Mr. Solway, after reading this entire conversation, I am left with little more than bewilderment. I don't mind if you reject rebirth or supply another explanation for becoming. It's your prerogative and you have the right to think what you wish.

You do not, however, have the right to redefine and reinterpret terms and concepts on the fly for no other reason than to provide justification for your personal beliefs. You have provided literally no scholarly evidence, either linguistically, historically, or philosophically, to suggest that your reading of rebirth is accurate; moreover, you've painted yourself into a corner in that you are attempting to refer to the suttas while attacking their legitimacy, relying on a reinterpretation of traditional Buddhist terminology while arguing that such terminology as it is understood historically is completely flawed. Why are you so interested in discussing any sutta passages or Buddhist teachings if you also desire to make it clear that they are epistemologically invalid? What are you hoping to accomplish?

If you believe that you have directly understood the nature of rebirth and becoming, that's fine, but I simply cannot believe that you can read the scriptures of the Theravada and honestly see anything but literal rebirth. So I'm going to ask you directly: do you believe that someone who did not have a preconceived notion that led them to search for evidence of non-physical rebirth would come to see that all of these statements, statements that have been seen as unequivocally referring to literal rebirth for twenty-five hundred years, and come to your conclusion? And if that is the case, do you think that the Buddha intentionally taught in such a way as to confuse and mislead others?

[tiltbillings]

Your "Buddhdhamma" has no basis in the actual teachings of the Buddha.

You don't know the teachings of the Buddha, so you are unqualified to say such things.

I don't know the teachings of Kevism, other than what you have exposed of them here, but Kevinism is not the teachings the teachings of the Buddha from what you have shown.

what have you resorted to in response? "I, Kevin Solway, know what I know because I have direct knowledge

I have never said that literal rebirth is false because I have direct knowledge.

I have given you solid reasons why literal rebirth is false, that any reasonable person can follow. For example, I have given you reasons why literal rebirth is false based on the nature of cause and effect.

You are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I hear nothing".

No fingers in the ears at all; just listening to the beliefs of Kevinism being expounded by its founder.

Your claim about human rebirth comes from the suttas

I've already explained that it doesn't. It comes from direct knowledge.

Comes from direct knowledge? So you assert, but you have not actually shown hat to be the case.

You are not qualified to say where it comes from.

So you say, but so you have not shown.All you are offering here is gainsaying.

you have no support except your "direct knowledge."

I only rely on my reason for support, such as my reasoned argument from cause and effect. If you want to dispute my reasoned argument from cause and effect then you are welcome to do so.

You have shown that your reason is rather unreasonable.

You work rather hard to deny any credibility to the Buddha's teachings

You don't know what the Buddha's teaching were, and you don't even know that the Buddha existed, so stop pretending that you know things that you don't actually know.

Honestly, Kevin, that is a rather sad little ploy, but indicative.

Poor anyone who does not accept that Kevin Solway has direct knowledge.

Again, I don't ask anyone to accept that I have direct knowledge. And again, you are making things up. I only ask that people consider my reasoned arguments, such as my argument from cause and effect. If you can't respond to my reasoned arguments with reasons then you have nothing of value to contribute.

You are the one claiming "direct knowledge," and I am not making that up. You have offered us a look at what you believe, and one of the things you believe, it seems, is that you have offered us a reasoned argument, which for Kevinism, it is probably as reasonable, but is it not Buddha-Dhamma, which this forum is about.

you are appealing to Shantideva

I'm not appealing to Shantideva, since Shantideva may have been entirely wrong.

I'm interested to know whether David N. Snyder thinks that he knows better than Shantideva (and Buddhadasa, etc), since he seems to think that he knows all about it.

Ah, so you are appealing to Shantideva, who you obviously do not understand.

[DNS]

I'm interested to know whether David N. Snyder thinks that he knows better than Shantideva (and Buddhadasa, etc), since he seems to think that he knows all about it.

Why do I have to have an opinion on Shantideva? I did not even bring him up. It was you who made the appeal to authority to Shantideva. I don't know if there is any difference between the Madhyamika of Shantideva and the teachings of Buddha, but if there is any, I'll go with Buddha. And no that is not an appeal to authority to Buddha since this is a Buddhist board. But your appeal to later teachers is in fact an appeal to authority logical fallacy and your attempts to twist my posts and others' posts to saying something they are not is nothing but red herrings and straw men.