You say things like:Bundokji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:36 pmI think you understood my input in exactly the opposite way i intended it to be. I said the suttas are full of condemnatory words, and i said that the Buddha wanted us to understand. To understand is to go beyond blame of praise. It has nothing to do with strict or lenient. Praise and blame is what you keep on insisting.binocular wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:01 pmI think what matters here is the attitude that one assumes the Buddha (and the arahants) would have towards one. If one imagines the Buddha as a severe teacher eager to punish and to dismiss and also reject his students, then I can see how what you're saying applies.
When you say things like that (and you do so regularly), I conclude your concern is with blaming, condemnation.Bundokji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:12 amI appreciate your wisdom, and your willingness to help. Your post made a differentiation between ignorance and a whole battery of mostly condemnatory words (taints, hindrances, defilement, misconduct ...etc) which i know that you did not invent these terms, they are Buddhist terminology, and they are used to convey a meaning of warning/danger/something to avoid, to stay away from.
Did not the Buddha wanted us to understand, and how can there be understanding when there is condemnation?
I've offered a model of the levels of knowledge/learning, in an effort to explain how some common expectations about how quickly we are supposed to learn and change, are unrealistic.I don't think Bloom's taxonomy has anything to say about whether ignorance is willful or not, it just describes different degrees of knowledge.
I disagree.but that we hide things from ourselves is evident when you observe yourself or other people.
I don't believe that humans are evil by nature and I don't believe anyone is "hiding things from themselves."
There are alternative explanations for those phenomena.It is easy to notice that people overestimate their strengths and overlook their weaknesses, so no theory is needed to confirm this simple fact.
If people would correctly estimate their strengths and know their weaknesses, they would probably never move past slurping soup or wiping their snotty noses.
You are free to propose so.What i am proposing that worldly knowledge is not only unreliable, but its ignorance. It something to be used, that is all, but beyond that, it has no value.
I have no horse in this race.
What you're saying is so foreign to me that I can't comment on it any more than saying that it seems to be a matter of your faith (which you don't seem to be at ease enough with, hence this discussion).Why not to focus on the message? I made certain points that can be easily confirmed by looking at how our minds function. What does that have to do with faith? Can you describe why the idea that "a negative cannot be a cause of anything" is right or wrong?I think that what you're describing happens for someone who has walked too far solely on faith; someone whose knowledge has stayed mostly on the lowest two levels.
Buddhism expects us to understand them? Buddhism isn't an entity with volition so that it could have expectations.
How are they "negative" terms, other than three of them being grammatical negations?Bundokji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:12 amNow, Buddhism used negative terms and expects us to understand them. Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Avijja are all negative terms, which the mind cannot understand without making them into something positive. We understand the negative in relation to something positive, so again, those terms become "things" in our mind.