A section for non-eternalist Buddhism?

[zan]

Might it be a good idea to have a strictly moderated area for those who don't subscribe to eternalist interpretations of the Dhamma?

I know we have an area for classical Theravada where this should maybe be the case but eternalists post there constantly as posting there does not require moderator approval. In Theravada for beginners, they post in careful wording to avoid being rejected by the moderator, who I sympathize with, I know that's an uphill battle and the moderator does good work! But they still get their carefully veiled two cents in, in some form or other, and it has become wearisome to post anywhere on this forum because I constantly feel like people are trying to convert me to eternalist Buddhism.

[Srilankaputra]

Hi zan,

What do you mean by eternalist Buddhism?

[zan]

Hi zan,

What do you mean by eternalist Buddhism?

From a quick web search of the words eternalism and Buddhism I found this from Budsas:
"...eternalism: This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever...

Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false."

A constant trend on this forum is for people to argue that arahants in some way or other do exist forever after death: eternalism. They believe that this is the proper understanding of Buddhism. They also deny that they have an eternalist view usually while simultaneously positing the eternal existence of arahants in some capacity or other. And so I think a reasonable title for this belief is eternalist Buddhism. As far as I know this didn't used to be the standard understanding of Buddhism and it is tiresome to have this constantly thrust upon me.

[DNS]

Might it be a good idea to have a strictly moderated area for those who don't ascribe to eternalist interpretations of the Dhamma?

I know we have an area for classical Theravada where this should maybe be the case but eternalists post there constantly as posting there does not require moderator approval.

We have the Classical Theravada sub-forums and although anyone can post there without moderator approval, anyone can still report a post which they feel doesn't meet the Classical forum guidelines.

I like the Classical Theravada sub-forums as it provides a place for those who only want to hear the Classical position on each Dhamma issue, but it's no surprise that it is one of the least busiest sub-forums. If everyone is all in agreement, there is not much need for clarification and not much to discuss.

[zan]

Might it be a good idea to have a strictly moderated area for those who don't ascribe to eternalist interpretations of the Dhamma?

I know we have an area for classical Theravada where this should maybe be the case but eternalists post there constantly as posting there does not require moderator approval.

We have the Classical Theravada sub-forums and although anyone can post there without moderator approval, anyone can still report a post which they feel doesn't meet the Classical forum guidelines.

I like the Classical Theravada sub-forums as it provides a place for those who only want to hear the Classical position on each Dhamma issue, but it's no surprise that it is one of the least busiest sub-forums. If everyone is all in agreement, there is not much need for clarification and not much to discuss.

Thank you. I suppose I could try reporting posts that are eternalist in the classical forum but then there is the issue of whether or not such and such idea is truly completely impossible to trace in the classical sources. If one digs deep enough there may be some abhidhamma related classical source that teaches or leaves open eternalism and then we have another place where it is allowed to preach eternalism.

I also do not want to overburden the moderator with complaints nor spend a lot of time reporting. There are constant eternalist posts so it would be a full time job. The eternalists seem to make it their mission to preach eternalism on any post where it is even remotely possible for it to be relevant.

I really enjoy discussing Buddhism but it's just exhausting having every conversation led astray by eternalists. Even when I'm having a good conversation with like minded individuals an eternalist will come by and distract everyone, pushing the conversation into an eternalist debate, which, frequently, is only marginally or indirectly related to the topic at hand.

Perhaps I am just so outnumbered that it is a lost cause?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Zan,

Linked from the Terms of Service there's a topic called (something like) Getting The Most Out Of Your New Topics. I recommend reading it.



Metta,
Paul.

[zan]

Greetings Zan,

Linked from the Terms of Service there's a topic called (something like) Getting The Most Out Of Your New Topics. I recommend reading it.



Metta,
Paul.

Thank you. I read it, but no matter how I structure a thread, even if, in the title, I put "orthodox Theravada" or something similar, the eternalists ignore it and preach anyway.

[DNS]

Perhaps I am just so outnumbered that it is a lost cause?

I don't think so (in regard to eternalism v. non-eternalism) as we've also had some complaints from some who say that DW is full of "secular-materialist-nihilists."

If one digs deep enough there may be some abhidhamma related classical source that teaches or leaves open eternalism and then we have another place where it is allowed to preach eternalism.

Yes and this is exactly why it's not good to enforce and only allow one particular view.

See for example this quote from Visuddhimagga, which some might interpret as eternalist:

[non-existence] That is not so. Because it would then follow that the noble path was meaningless. For if it were so, then, since defilements [can be] non-existent also before the moment of the noble path, it follows that the noble path would be meaningless. Consequently that is no reason; [it is unreasonable to say that Nibbána is unapprehendable, that it is non-existence, and so on]. (Visudhimagga, Ch. XVI)

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Might it be a good idea to have a strictly moderated area for those who don't subscribe to eternalist interpretations of the Dhamma?

I know we have an area for classical Theravada where this should maybe be the case but eternalists post there constantly as posting there does not require moderator approval. In Theravada for beginners, they post in careful wording to avoid being rejected by the moderator, who I sympathize with, I know that's an uphill battle and the moderator does good work! But they still get their carefully veiled two cents in, in some form or other, and it has become wearisome to post anywhere on this forum because I constantly feel like people are trying to convert me to eternalist Buddhism.

Thanks.

imho, partial eternalists [ever more so than pure eternalists] (I don't use the the word buddhism/buddhists here ), just don't have enough Dhamma to understand why their view is not right, and time and again they tend to try to equate their views with Buddha's teachings.

Of course, ---> this <--- is just a mere one of those wrong views.

That said, I'm not sure whether these partial eternalists are active on DW or not

Metta,

[zan]

Perhaps I am just so outnumbered that it is a lost cause?

I don't think so (in regard to eternalism v. non-eternalism) as we've also had some complaints from some who say that DW is full of "secular-materialist-nihilists."

If one digs deep enough there may be some abhidhamma related classical source that teaches or leaves open eternalism and then we have another place where it is allowed to preach eternalism.

Yes and this is exactly why it's not good to enforce and only allow one particular view.

See for example this quote from Visuddhimagga, which some might interpret as eternalist:

[non-existence] That is not so. Because it would then follow that the noble path was meaningless. For if it were so, then, since defilements [can be] non-existent also before the moment of the noble path, it follows that the noble path would be meaningless. Consequently that is no reason; [it is unreasonable to say that Nibbána is unapprehendable, that it is non-existence, and so on]. (Visudhimagga, Ch. XVI)

Excellent point. This is why I think it would be nice to have just one sub forum for non eternalists specifically. That way we skip the interpretive issue and the eternalist preaching is wrong no matter what in that forum. And sure maybe have an eternalist sub forum too where the opposite is true?

I just don't want to be preached at any more

[zan]

Might it be a good idea to have a strictly moderated area for those who don't subscribe to eternalist interpretations of the Dhamma?

I know we have an area for classical Theravada where this should maybe be the case but eternalists post there constantly as posting there does not require moderator approval. In Theravada for beginners, they post in careful wording to avoid being rejected by the moderator, who I sympathize with, I know that's an uphill battle and the moderator does good work! But they still get their carefully veiled two cents in, in some form or other, and it has become wearisome to post anywhere on this forum because I constantly feel like people are trying to convert me to eternalist Buddhism.

Thanks.

imho, partial eternalists [ever more so than pure eternalists] (I don't use the the word buddhism/buddhists here ), just don't have enough Dhamma to understand why their view is not right, and time and again they tend to try to equate their views with Buddha's teachings.

Of course, ---> this <--- is just a mere one of those wrong views.

That said, I'm not sure whether these partial eternalists are active on DW or not

Metta,

I think I like you. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think we're on the same page or at least in the same chapter.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Perhaps I am just so outnumbered that it is a lost cause?

I don't think so (in regard to eternalism v. non-eternalism) as we've also had some complaints from some who say that DW is full of "secular-materialist-nihilists."

If one digs deep enough there may be some abhidhamma related classical source that teaches or leaves open eternalism and then we have another place where it is allowed to preach eternalism.

Yes and this is exactly why it's not good to enforce and only allow one particular view.

See for example this quote from Visuddhimagga, which some might interpret as eternalist:

[non-existence] That is not so. Because it would then follow that the noble path was meaningless. For if it were so, then, since defilements [can be] non-existent also before the moment of the noble path, it follows that the noble path would be meaningless. Consequently that is no reason; [it is unreasonable to say that Nibbána is unapprehendable, that it is non-existence, and so on]. (Visudhimagga, Ch. XVI)

Excellent point. This is why I think it would be nice to have just one sub forum for non eternalists specifically. That way we skip the interpretive issue and the eternalist preaching is wrong no matter what in that forum. And sure maybe have an eternalist sub forum too where the opposite is true?

I just don't want to be preached at any more

I vote - Yes.

[Idappaccayata]

Could you give some examples? I don't recall seeing any eternalist posts recently.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Through discussion with the OP, we have managed to identify an alternative approach to the "problem" raised, since the "solution" proposed isn't compatible with our forum taxonomy.

As such, this topic will be closed.

Metta,
Paul.