Greetings,
Some off-topic posts have been move to: Circle5 obsessively labelling other people Solipsists.
Subsequent posts that needlessly introduce Solipsism will be moved to this new topic.
Metta,
Paul.
Internal / External - significance and meaning
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Greetings ToVincent,
Metta,
Paul.
No, it's not. It has nothing to do with self-view. If you can find anything in Nanananda's works that actually advocates self-view, do please let me know. Until such time, your over-the-top reactions to what you disagree with, or have not bothered to understand on its own terms, will be regarded by me as baseless hyperbole. As Spiny said to you in a different topic recently, "It is just a different understanding. Don't assume that anyone with a different view to yours must be wrong."
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
The internal/external dichotomy has fascinated me for years. I really liked how Ñāṇananda Bhikkhu described it:
And even then, everything from the external/physical world, aren't those understood from just your perceptions, which are completely dependent on your senses? What does the actual physical/external world look like without the bias of how your own senses are? If your eyes have more red cones, you see more red, but what does the external world actually look like (think this one through a little)?
In reality, there is no separation of the external and the internal, as well as being no distinction of the mental and physical. Physical changes affect your internal world; mental changes effect the physical world (brain chemistry, etc.).
Like in the formula of Dependent Origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), Mind and Matter (nāma-rūpa) are a single link. They are co-dependent and one cannot exist without the other.
The internal/external dichotomy will result in having a completely skewed understanding of reality—like how the common person of the 21st century (and probably all centuries in the past) understands the world. When you actually sit down and take the time to think of how your mind and the world works (something not many seem to do), what would you class as being external? Is your body external? What about your organs and blood? Doesn't the dichotomy therefore make no sense—physical and non-physical being a better way to understand reality?Nanananda, in Nibbana Sermons wrote:The cessation of the vortex is the freedom from that duality [external and internal]. It is a solitude born of full integration.
And even then, everything from the external/physical world, aren't those understood from just your perceptions, which are completely dependent on your senses? What does the actual physical/external world look like without the bias of how your own senses are? If your eyes have more red cones, you see more red, but what does the external world actually look like (think this one through a little)?
In reality, there is no separation of the external and the internal, as well as being no distinction of the mental and physical. Physical changes affect your internal world; mental changes effect the physical world (brain chemistry, etc.).
Like in the formula of Dependent Origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), Mind and Matter (nāma-rūpa) are a single link. They are co-dependent and one cannot exist without the other.
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Seems that most effort is placed on saying what things are external and what things are internal. If int/ext is taken to be artibrary then perhaps it is good to discern how it is that we mistakenly make the distinction and what is the nature and characteristics of the line we draw between these two.......and if int/ext is not arbitrary then what is the nature and characteristics of the line we see between the two.
Rambling a bit,
chownah
Rambling a bit,
chownah
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
I prefer to see it as subjective and objective—subjective being what is personal to you (body, thoughts, beliefs, being conscious or not, sensations, perceptions, etc.) and objective being what is not personal (the world, countries, science, facts, other people, etc.). Notice that the objective is part of the subjective, because the objective is only perceivable and can only exist from sensory input—or that your understanding of the world is a "filter" of how you see the world (and further, "the world" in reality being only sensory input).
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
First, I did not even bother to answer Spiny Norman about his preposterous remark.retrofuturist wrote: No, it's not. It has nothing to do with self-view. If you can find anything in Nanananda's works that actually advocates self-view, do please let me know. Until such time, your over-the-top reactions to what you disagree with, or have not bothered to understand on its own terms, will be regarded by me as baseless hyperbole. As Spiny said to you in a different topic recently, "It is just a different understanding. Don't assume that anyone with a different view to yours must be wrong."
What would have been the point to proceed further?
Secondly, I can find something in Nanananda's work that actually advocates self-view. And that's the following:
Isn't "integration the act of combining into an integral whole?Nanananda wrote:The cessation of the vortex is the freedom from that duality [external and internal]. It is a solitude born of full integration.
Isn't that the "view of a self" in Indian philosophy, and in Buddhism?
People should read Veda - and preferably, they should have done it, before they hit the Buddhist Dhamma.
This should prevent them to add to these Indian philosophies at large, their own bias towards an empiricist view, hammered in their head since infancy.
Buddhism is neither empiricism; nor middle & late (Upaniṣadic) Vedic creed.
A person undertaking practices on his own, goes high & low, latched onto perception (inquiries & assumptions). But having clearly known through Vedas, having encountered the Dhamma, one of profound discernment doesn't go high & low.
Snp 4.4
So, if you haven't yet done it, you should read Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad (BṛĀr.Up.) 4.3.31 & 32 for that matter.
Up to 31, the (philosophical) necessity (potential >> actual) of the sensory world, is not denied by the Buddha. Buddha does not deny the necessity of a partial phenomenalism and empiricism.BṛĀr.Up. wrote:31
"When there is some other thing, then the one can see the other, the one can smell the other, the one can taste the other, the one can speak to the other, the one can hear the other, the one can think of the other, the one can touch the other, and the one can perceive the other.
32
"He becomes the one ocean, he becomes the sole seer! This, YourMajesty, is the world of brahman. "So did Yajnavalkya instruct him. "This is his highest goal!
This is his highest attainment! This is his highest world! This is his highest bliss! On just a fraction of this bliss do other creatures live.
What is denied is how the Upaniṣadic Brahmins and the modern Hinduist - (e.g. Advaita vedanta,) are transcending this world in 32 - and how Nanananda, you, samvara, Spiny Norman et al., advocate it - Viz. the full integration of the external and the internal.
That is just a freaking "self-view" - the way "self-view" was conceived in Buddha's time - And not conceived through your "different understanding" of it; that might seem "right" to you - while being just a mere surmisal on your part; and not a straight fact.
A "self-view" that was straightforwardly rejected by Buddha.
Buddha never advocated the full integration of the external and the internal; as the middle Vedic and late Vedic Upaniṣadic Brahmins did. That is a misconstrual; coming straight from a hard core (18th century) empiricist's mind; awkwardly integrated with an Upaniṣadic creed.
People should instead look into the saṃ (& the ud), and the vi; where they actually take place. How to still the saṃ. And how to transcend them.
Transcendence from the (necessary) kama loka (ceto & pañña vi-mutti [vi-muc]*); to the rūpa loka; to the arūpa loka; and to nibbana (beyond ignorance**).
That would be more proper, I suppose.
* (lower) jhānas are not really "essential"; yet preferable.
** higher Jhanas seem rather "essential" to reach that.
-----------
The interpretation of Nananada does not fit the suttas, anyway. I have already taken some examples earlier - so I should add some more.
I will only take some instance dealing with the satipaṭṭhāna:
While he is contemplating the body among the bodies, there arises in him, based on the body, either a fever in the body or sluggishness of citta, or the citta is distracted outwardly.
SN 47.10
"Distracted outwardly" - why should it be "distracted"? - Doesn't Nanananda advocate the unity of both the internal and the external? - If we listen to Nanananda, that can't be "distraction"!
Because, bhikkhus, that foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not pick up the attribute of his own citta.
SN 47.8
Own citta? - shouldn't he have both citta in unity; as Nanananda advocates? - his own and the other as well?
Why incompetent? - If we listen to Nanananda, that can't be "incompetence"!
Not directing his citta outwardly, a bhikkhu understands: ‘My mind is not directed outwardly.’
Then he understands: ‘It is undispatched (क्षिप् kṣip) formerly or afterwards, liberated, unintended (aimless).’
SN 47.10
Liberated? - how come? - Doesn't Nanananda advocate uniting the outward and the inward to be liberated?
Doesn't Nanananda advocating that one should have intentions (and maintain consciousness)?
Etc., etc.
In other words, "what you have vomited out, you can't swallow back" - (as in Thag 19.1).
Sorry to be a downgrader on that one - but that's just plain downrightness, on right-down plain echt Buddhism.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Thank you for explaining Nanananda view so well ToVicent. I kept hearing from people that Nanananda view is different than Nanavira and Nanamoli, but every time I asked, nobody could tell me in what way is it different. Indeed it is not standard solipsism as I have been claiming, but it's a kind of monism found in hinduism, with uniting the external and the internal.
And yes, Nanananda is a believer in a self. This is shown by Paul Davy and other followers of Nanananda being highly against the no-self view of normal buddhist and big fans of Thanissaro. It's not even a secret as you thought it was when writing the above post, it's actually an openly acknowledge fact, both in Nanananda view and in Nanavira one, as can be seen by Alfatun signature quote.
As for Samseva arguments, I've provided answers for every point brought up and it took some time to write them. Unfortunatelly they have been censored but can still be found here if Samseva is interested: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=30449&start=40#p441979
Thank you ToVicent for finally clarifying to me what is up with Nanananda view. Indeed it is not standard solipsism, it's a kind of hinduist monism. I am very curious to see the discussion develop further. I'll leave you to deal with that since I'm not an expert on Nanananda, I am just familiar with Nanavira and Nanamoli.
There is just one thing I still don't undestand ToVicent. If Nanananda is not a solipsist but a hinduist monist, then how about Paul Davy answer to the question about weather his family, the city, etc. will continue to exist after he dies ? And how about this quote provided by Mikenz from Nanananda:
And yes, Nanananda is a believer in a self. This is shown by Paul Davy and other followers of Nanananda being highly against the no-self view of normal buddhist and big fans of Thanissaro. It's not even a secret as you thought it was when writing the above post, it's actually an openly acknowledge fact, both in Nanananda view and in Nanavira one, as can be seen by Alfatun signature quote.
As for Samseva arguments, I've provided answers for every point brought up and it took some time to write them. Unfortunatelly they have been censored but can still be found here if Samseva is interested: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=30449&start=40#p441979
Thank you ToVicent for finally clarifying to me what is up with Nanananda view. Indeed it is not standard solipsism, it's a kind of hinduist monism. I am very curious to see the discussion develop further. I'll leave you to deal with that since I'm not an expert on Nanananda, I am just familiar with Nanavira and Nanamoli.
There is just one thing I still don't undestand ToVicent. If Nanananda is not a solipsist but a hinduist monist, then how about Paul Davy answer to the question about weather his family, the city, etc. will continue to exist after he dies ? And how about this quote provided by Mikenz from Nanananda:
How do these ideas fit with the hinduist monist ones presented by you above ? I still don't fully understand Nanananda view. It would be great if someone could put it in a few words.The world appears as real to one who is fettered to delusion. He imagines it to be reliable. And so the fool, relying on his assets, is encompassed by the darkness. To him the world appears as eternal. But the one who has the right vision, knows that in reality there is nothing.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Greetings ToVincent,
Metta,
Paul.
Sigh. You grab something, a tiny snippet of two words, interpret it in a manner different to what is intended, and then you run a mile with it before you even stop to check whether it's on point. Anyway, here's Nanananda explicitly and succinctly denying the position you accuse him of, and thus rendering your diatribe moot and void...ToVincent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:49 pm Secondly, I can find something in Nanananda's work that actually advocates self-view. And that's the following:Isn't "integration the act of combining into an integral whole?Nanananda wrote:The cessation of the vortex is the freedom from that duality [external and internal]. It is a solitude born of full integration.
Isn't that the "view of a self" in Indian philosophy, and in Buddhism?
The "full integration" spoken of is not about merging as one, but about learning to stop tearing experience in two (e.g. dichotomies such internal/external, self/others, like/dislike)Nanananda, Nibbana Sermons 30 wrote:In other religions systems the question of reality is resolved by having recourse to unity. Oneness is supposed to be the ultimate goal.
In our analysis of the samsaric problem, we often referred to a duality or a dichotomy. Everywhere we were confronted with a duality. But to grasp the two as one, in some form of oneness, is not the way out. Instead we have here, as the final solution, atammayatā or non-identification, a clinging-free approach in the last analysis.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
The bolded part is basically meaningless. Looking implies vision. The world as noumena is simply an idea or assertion that the world exists independently of perception and perspective. But once you remove all perspective you remove the possibility of description. This is where language no longer applies. I don't mean that in a spiritual/mystical sense, I mean it as a simple inference from the nature of experience and language. I do believe that people, rocks, trees, molecules, atoms etc. exist independently of perception but there can be no description apart from some perception or perspective. And I don't think that believing in the reality of the external world is some kind of fetter, it is merely a useful idea that we all have, at least implicitly.
The most "objective" model or vision of the world is simply the model that takes into account as many perspectives of it as possible. This could include human vision, infrared, radar, various other electromagnetic perspectives, and then different levels of description e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, and throw in phenomenology and other more subjective descriptions too I guess.
Thanks for bringing this sutta up because it shows that the internal/external distinction is not some singularly applicable distinction. At least not singularly applicable in the case of mind-objects, since, at least nowadays, we don't think of thoughts or mental experiences as being "out there" so to speak. Maybe ancient indians had some crude idea though that the Buddha merely made instrumental use of. In any event, I think it is obvious that in the case of the elements, internal/external simply refers to the fact that the body is made up of the same stuff as the environment surrounding it, and when contemplated properly one no longer clings to the body as self. In this case though internal/external refers to sense-ability and sense-data, with sense-data not necessarily implying a dependence on the physical environment, in the case of the mind at least.2600htz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:22 am Hello:
The sutta i like the most about internal/external is "MN-148 - The Six Sets of Six - Chachakka Sutta".
Taking the eye as an example: "eye-base" is the internal, and "form-base" is the external. Dependent on eye-base and form-base, eye feeling,eye craving, etc. comes to be. Thats pretty clear.
Regards.4] (i) " ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ This is the first set of six.
5] (ii) " ‘The six external bases should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odor-base, the flavor-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood.’ This is the second set of six.
6] (iii) " ‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odors; nose-consciousness arises, dependent on tongue and flavors, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on mind and mind objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ This is the third set of six.
I don't see any notion in the suttas though that the distinction between sense-ability and sense-data is a hindrance to the eradication of craving. Rather it is a useful analytical distinction that helps one see how experience is conditioned and constructed, thereby impermanent, thereby unsatisfactory, and thereby not to be identified with. Merely eliminating the distinction or entering some mental state where such perceptions of distinction are in abeyance does not constitute the destruction of dukkha as far as I can tell from the discourses. Rather, it is the elimination of craving, of passion and delight for experience, of any kind, even experiences free of any bifurcation or multiplicity based analyses or apperceptions, that is the elimination of dukkha.
"No, my friend. The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.
"Suppose that a black ox and a white ox were joined with a single collar or yoke. If someone were to say, 'The black ox is the fetter of the white ox, the white ox is the fetter of the black' — speaking this way, would he be speaking rightly?"
"No, my friend. The black ox is not the fetter of the white ox, nor is the white ox the fetter of the black. The single collar or yoke by which they are joined: That is the fetter there."
"In the same way, the eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.
"If the eye were the fetter of forms, or if forms were the fetter of the eye, then this holy life for the right ending of stress & suffering would not be proclaimed. But because whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them is the fetter there, that is why this holy life for the right ending of stress & suffering is proclaimed.
"If the ear were the fetter...
"If the nose were the fetter...
"If the tongue were the fetter...
"If the body were the fetter...
"If the intellect were the fetter of ideas, or if ideas were the fetter of the intellect, then this holy life for the right ending of stress & suffering would not be proclaimed. But because whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them is the fetter there, that is why this holy life for the right ending of stress & suffering is proclaimed.
"And through this line of reasoning one may know how the eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. There is an eye in the Blessed One. The Blessed One sees forms with the eye. There is no desire or passion in the Blessed One. The Blessed One is well-released in mind.
"There is an ear in the Blessed One...
"There is a nose in the Blessed One...
"There is a tongue in the Blessed One...
"There is a body in the Blessed One...
"There is an intellect in the Blessed One. The Blessed One knows ideas with the intellect. There is no desire or passion in the Blessed One. The Blessed One is well-released in mind.
"It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how the eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
I don't know much about Nanananda.
I just know that I have a hard time with his "understanding" of the "vortex". Something he relates to the internal & the external. When it is just simply the establishment of consciousness that triggers the descent of nāmarūpa; which in turn creates manosañcetanā (for instance), that sustains the maintenance and therefore, the establishment of conciousness.
That is to say a "vortex", that is just a "vicious circle". Consciousness >> Nāmarūpa >> consciousness >> nāmarūpa>> etc.
As long as there is maintenance of consciousness. Period!
Now, Spiny Norman et al., will tell you that Nanananda's "understanding", might be "right". The same way that Spiny Norman et al., might tell you that a guy that says, that he considers salty as green, is "right".
Why not?
But for me, Nanananda's understanding of the "vortex" is just very questionable.
The same way that I find it very questionable, when he thinks that: "the cessation of the vortex is the freedom from that duality [external and internal]. It is a solitude born of full integration".
Pure "self-view" to me.
As far as emptiness is concerned, the idea of a an empty world, is a late "buddhist" concept (4th-5th century CE).
In early Buddhism, what is not there, does not mean non-existence of it.
In the Jewish creed, before Jehovah created the world, there was nothing. Then he created the world. If a Jew decides mentally, to withdraw from the world, and mentally reach the point of creation - and even before that point* - would that make the world disappear?
You could ask yourself the question.
*Considering that Jehovah gives him the manner and mode to do that (mentally ["cittally"])?.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
"Everything" and its contrary".
Not a bad tactic.
That can work on some people.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
I suggest, as I have before, listening to Ven Analayo's talks, which I found made it easier to cut though his archaic Sinhalese-English style, and the rather outdated sutta translations he inserts for the benefit of those not fluent in Pali. It's also helpful to reflect that he spoke those sermons in Sinhalese at a forest meditation monastery that used a variant of the Mahasi approach. [He left the monastery after his preceptor died, reportedly feeling that it became too slack, and when Ven Analayo was transcribing the English translations, many years later, he had to visit him in a mountain cave...]
As Ven Analayo points out, nama-rupa, is the first of the Classical insight knowledges (nāmarūpapariccheda-ñāṇa), and subsequent talks seem to work though the subsequent insight knowledges, which would be the framework that the monks were familiar with.
As noted in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=439287#p439261, viewtopic.php?p=439287#p439287 Ven Nananada's meditation instructions read very familiarly to Mahasi practitioners. Of course, he adds his own spin to exactly how the insights should play out, for example the nama-rupa vortex...
Mike
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
That is just sophistry to me.retrofuturist wrote: The "full integration" spoken of is not about merging as one, but about learning to stop tearing experience in two (e.g. dichotomies such internal/external, self/others, like/dislike)
Your Nanananda is not clear.
Explain to me how your Nanananda arrives at "stopping tearing experiences in two".
Because, me too, I am for that stuff!
How does he stop the dichotomy of internal/external?
I have already given you the process of transcendence in Buddhism. But you keep on going giving me your free tickets for you nonsense merry-go-round => no solution whatsoever.
Also, if you could translate - in proper English - what he really meant; we would avoid mikenz66 remarks.
Although I don't think that would help change a bit, his questionable "understanding" of his "vortex" concept.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Greetings ToVincent,
However, I will continue to quote Nanananda where I feel it's relevant, and you can continue to try chopping it down. In light of this, arguably a more beneficial exercise would be to read his Nibbana Sermons, and then make your own conclusions about what is presented. For example, I have read the entire Visuddhimagga. I don't agree with vast tracts of it, and I think it regularly misses the point by either not comprehending what is said in the sutta, or by retrofitting it through an Adhidhammic lens, but I have taken the time to comprehend the Mahavihara world-view, and thus, I am able to use that as a reference point by which to contrast my own understanding. I don't agree with much of it, but I do not for a second regret having immersed myself in that worldview in order to enhance my understanding of it, and to clarify what I find objectionable about it. Even if you don't agree with anything Nanananda says, you will at least:
1. Understand what he actually says, and have no need to inadvertently revert to strawmen
2. Clarify your own perspective, by reflecting on and contrasting it against that which you feel contradicts it
Whether you choose to do so is entirely up to you, but if this is going to go on for a while, I honestly think there's better things that could be done in the long-term than to cut down strawmen.
Metta,
Paul.
It makes me wonder how much attention you're paying if you've concluded that Spiny Norman advocates ven. Nanananda's understanding?
To be clear, I've got no problem whatsoever with you criticizing what is presented to you of ven Nananada's expositions. By the very nature of these discussions, only fragments can be presented at a time. To respond in kind is fair enough, since the background, contexts and linkages cannot be replicated each and every time, not least for the fact they sprawl into hundreds of pages of explanation.
However, I will continue to quote Nanananda where I feel it's relevant, and you can continue to try chopping it down. In light of this, arguably a more beneficial exercise would be to read his Nibbana Sermons, and then make your own conclusions about what is presented. For example, I have read the entire Visuddhimagga. I don't agree with vast tracts of it, and I think it regularly misses the point by either not comprehending what is said in the sutta, or by retrofitting it through an Adhidhammic lens, but I have taken the time to comprehend the Mahavihara world-view, and thus, I am able to use that as a reference point by which to contrast my own understanding. I don't agree with much of it, but I do not for a second regret having immersed myself in that worldview in order to enhance my understanding of it, and to clarify what I find objectionable about it. Even if you don't agree with anything Nanananda says, you will at least:
1. Understand what he actually says, and have no need to inadvertently revert to strawmen
2. Clarify your own perspective, by reflecting on and contrasting it against that which you feel contradicts it
Whether you choose to do so is entirely up to you, but if this is going to go on for a while, I honestly think there's better things that could be done in the long-term than to cut down strawmen.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning
Greetings ToVincent,
The bifurcation of sense-base and object is the arising of the world.
"internal and"
"two ends"
"symposium"
Metta,
Paul.
They're my words, not his, through you can do a word-search of his Nibbana Sermons for the term "bifurcation" and you will find more.
The bifurcation of sense-base and object is the arising of the world.
This has been explained already, but if you wish to read more, I reiterate my previous recommendation that you read his Nibbana Sermons in toto, or if you're unwilling to do that, open a PDF or DOC of his Nibbana Sermons on your computer and search for the phrases:
"internal and"
"two ends"
"symposium"
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."