Page 6 of 13

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:11 pm
by Nyana
danieLion wrote:
daverupa wrote:And rebirth has nothing to do with the practice, as Pāṭaliya was instructed.
Thank you for reminding me of this. The Pataliya Sutta is found in the Samyutta Nikaya 42.13, where the Buddha tells Pataliya the Headman not worry about rebirth becuase the law of karma is not always visible here and now. The Buddha instead instructs him to focus on "abandoning" which is comprised of cultivating sila and sati, and developing samadhi.
In SN 42.13 rebirth is still to be included as a part of the disciple's contemplation:
  • He reflects thus, '... since I am restrained in body, speech, and mind, and since, with the breakup of the body, after death, I shall be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.' [As he reflects thus] gladness is born. When one is gladdened, rapture is born. When the mind is elated by rapture the body becomes tranquil. One tranquil in body experiences happiness. The mind of one who is happy becomes concentrated.
If one were to take SN 42.13 as a guide for practice, then this would include frequently reflecting on rebirth as a part of one's dhammasamādhi.

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:20 pm
by danieLion
Cittasanto wrote:
Viscid wrote:
danieLion wrote:Does "name-dropping" really bother you? If so, why?
Well, on a forum such as this one we have to assume that the people we're speaking with haven't read the same material we have, especially when that material is obscure. If you're name-dropping, you're saying "you won't understand what I am trying to explain unless you are as familiar with these sources as I am" which excludes most people from the discussion. It also just looks like you're trying to impress others with how well-read you are.
or providing the sources so that others can look more closely at the source and come to a conclusion based on the same information.
Nice paraphrase. Thanks. :anjali:

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:25 pm
by robertk
if i remember correctly the buddha explains to Pataliya that those who commit illdeeds are reborn in woeful planes and even in hell.

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:28 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:35 pm
by Mr Man
danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Viscid wrote:
Well, on a forum such as this one we have to assume that the people we're speaking with haven't read the same material we have, especially when that material is obscure. If you're name-dropping, you're saying "you won't understand what I am trying to explain unless you are as familiar with these sources as I am" which excludes most people from the discussion. It also just looks like you're trying to impress others with how well-read you are.
or providing the sources so that others can look more closely at the source and come to a conclusion based on the same information.
Nice paraphrase. Thanks. :anjali:
I think the meaning of "paraphrase" must have changed. :smile:

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:37 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:41 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:42 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:45 pm
by danieLion
Mr Man wrote:I think the meaning of "paraphrase" must have changed. :smile:
I meant Cittsanto's paraphrase of my reply to the above, not his parphrase of the above.

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:46 pm
by danieLion
daverupa wrote: :zzz:

There's a way to abandon these states of perplexity...
Indeed. I'm working toward that. Thanks again for the reminder.

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:50 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:51 pm
by Dmytro
Hi Mr Man,

First, you ask personal questions, and then you insinuate that my words are pure speculation.
Why asking then?

This reminds me of scientism trick - first to limit verification to the physical phenomena, and then outlaw any subjective verification, and hence all subjective phenomena. In this way, such "scientists" are asking questions about subjective phenomena without really asking them - they already "know" the answer, - subjective phenomena "don't exist". There's nothing physical to prove that you have anything in the inner world, - so there's nothing worthwhile in your inner world. All that matters is your brain chemistry.

Hopefully the science will move into the methods of subjective verification, which will help to obtain deeper insight into such phenomena as past lives, etc. It's quite doable.

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:53 pm
by danieLion
manas wrote:
...
"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'
...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What to speak of the Buddha, even King Ajatasattu rejected annihilationism. Yet nowadays, going by the above definition, a lot of people do hold this view.

:anjali:
I'm neither a materialist nor an annihilationist (or eternalist).
How does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:56 pm
by danieLion
...delete...

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:58 pm
by beeblebrox
Ñāṇa wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:Why believe in something (existence) when there's no experience of it (non-existence)?
If direct perception is the only reliable criterion, then why believe that arahanthood is possible?...
Hi Nana,

People only do the practice (or at least seriously) when they've encountered someone or something that they thought was noble. This is a fact. That is why it's called the Triple Gem.

How could the refuge be real if it was put on something that was never seen?
Ñāṇa wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:Also, what exactly is "spontaneously reborn beings"?
See Ven. Dhammanando's post here.
From that post:
1. Although 'spontaneously born' is the usual meaning of opapaatika, in the context of mundane right view the commentaries understand it to denote rebirth in general, no matter which of the four modes of generation is involved.
I think that's interesting. How could it be spontaneous if it was reborn?
beeblebrox wrote:What are the pali words for these, especially for "reborn"?
The most common terms are upapatti (rebirth) and punabbhava (renewed existence).
I think it's something worth investigating... check out this thread, for example.

:anjali: