All dhammas are personal, not public

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:18 am

Greetings Saengnapha,

In topics such as these which discuss the deeper aspects of the Dhamma, there are invariably 4 types of response.

1. To understand what is said, and agree.
2. To understand what is said, and disagree.
3. To not understand, and ask further questions to clarify what has been said.
4. To not understand, but belligerenly insist upon misrepresenting what is said.

The OP allowed scope for the first three ... i.e. "Agree? Disagree? Questions?".

Response 4, however, is off-topic.

Either engage with the topic, or leave it. Your quarrelsomeness is both uninvited and unwelcome.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by robertk » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:20 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:59 am
Greetings binocular,

Respectfully, your ongoing fixation on the subject of authority within religion, is totally irrelevant to this topic.

Through this topic I am willingly challenging orthodoxy and asking others to share their thoughts on what is being said. No authority, no compulsion, just open exploration and investigation... if that's not for you, or if you don't even believe such a thing is possible then so be it, but your repeated expressions of consternation are off-topic.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)

Yes, Binocular, Retro is doing what you seem to desire by gently stating/inferring that monks of old got a most critical part of the Buddha Dhamma wrong : he is putting a soft finger in the eye of authority. Exactly what you seem to wish you could do?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:22 am

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:15 am
But the rupa in nama-rupa is the four great elements, which according you your other posts are noumena, so you appear to be contradicting yourself.
Not at all. I'm simply saying what I understand to be a sankhata-dhamma, and what is not... which is what this topic is about.

If you wish to make a case that the four great elements are in some way dependent upon avijja, and are thus sankhata-dhammas, then by all means please present it. Otherwise I'll assume we're in agreeance that they're not.

Thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:26 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:17 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:03 am
Total honesty is what the Buddha called for, not repetition of what he said. Repetition, at best, serves to focus attention on the conditioned, and to see the conditioned as conditioned. That is the best anyone can do. Recognition of all dhammas as conditioned is Tilakhanna.
So I'm merely repeating what he said, and not being honest? OK, if you say so... I couldn't be bothered arguing with such false, uncharitable and unsubstantiable allegations, and I'm increasingly disinclined to respond to any more of your presumptuous misrepresentations either.
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:03 am
I have no argument with what the Buddha taught. I do have plenty with what came afterwards.
... which is a highly ironic statement given your apparent advocacy of the three-lifetime "circular" model of dependent origination.

:ugeek:

Metta,
Paul. :)
You seem to think I'm calling you dishonest? Not at all. Why assume such a petulant stance? Your reactions should be informing you of your own disturbance and inability to discuss what others might put forth. No one wise dismisses another as you seem to be doing. Is this not 'uncharitable' behaviour on your part?

What is the 3 lifetime circular model of dependent orgination? I certainly didn't say anything about that or ever heard of it.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:27 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:18 am
Greetings Saengnapha,

In topics such as these which discuss the deeper aspects of the Dhamma, there are invariably 4 types of response.

1. To understand what is said, and agree.
2. To understand what is said, and disagree.
3. To not understand, and ask further questions to clarify what has been said.
4. To not understand, but belligerenly insist upon misrepresenting what is said.

The OP allowed scope for the first three ... i.e. "Agree? Disagree? Questions?".

Response 4, however, is off-topic.

Either engage with the topic, or leave it. Your quarrelsomeness is both uninvited and unwelcome.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
I don't feel beligerent at all towards you. Can you possibly entertain the thought that this is your projection?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:30 am

Greetings Saengnapha,
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:26 am
What is the 3 lifetime circular model of dependent orgination? I certainly didn't say anything about that or ever heard of it.
You insisted our experience of paticcasamuppada was "circular". I challenged you to provide a sutta which supported this view.

I asked if you're an advocate of the 3 lifetime model, as that's the most obvious way, which I could understand someone referring to it as circular.... but if it is otherwise, do speak, as you see it.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:31 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:22 am
If you wish to make a case that the four great elements are in some way dependent upon avijja, and are thus sankhata-dhammas, then by all means please present it.
Do we agree that the four great elements are part of dependent origination (the rupa part of nama-rupa), and that the whole sequence depends on ignorance? I already quoted the sutta that explains that:
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2/12.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4639
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:59 am

binocular wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:40 am

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about the initial step, which is to trust the person who is saying those things.
And I'm pursuing this line because it was the OP that introduced the terms "personal" and "public" loaded terms.
The level of trust required is less than that involved in trusting the memories and self-imposed conditions which lead one to withhold that trust in the first place. You seem to have got hold of a view of trust or faith that relies upon Zeno's paradox. "I can't trust this person, because I have to listen to them first, and that involves trust". Achilles is never going to catch that particular tortoise, is he?
And we can verify that Jesus is our Lord and Savior by opening our hearts. Or that Krishna resides in our hearts. Etc.
Maybe. Now which particular one are you interested in?
Which is polite speak for "trust," "submit to others", etc.
If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. If you base all your thinking around authority, power, and trust, then you end up with something like your last few posts. You might want to try persisting with this strategy even more, to see if any insight arises as a result. Why do you trust your own inclination to not trust? Why do you trust that the language doesn't mutate and become meaningless even as you make posts? Why do you trust that other sentient beings exist?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:01 am

Greetings Mike,

Your question isn't really answerable as you pose it, because each nidana is a misguided sankhata by-product of (personal) ignorance, yet you seem to be implying that in the case of rupa, it is partially not, and thus somehow the public aspect of rupa is affirmed by the personal samsaric delusion known as paticcasamuppada. I contend it is not so. The four elements are so, or "such", but not due to paticcasamuppada.

Rupa should be viewed as empty and non-substantial, but due to ignorance, it is not. Specifically regarding form, as per the Buddha in SN 22.95...
Phena Sutta wrote:On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
And as previous discussed re: MN1, phenomena shouldn't be extrapolated from noumena
“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal, and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he should not conceive himself as earth, he should not conceive himself in earth, he should not conceive himself apart from earth, he should not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.
... Yet due to avijja, we do. Because we do, we find them mentioned in paticcasamuppada.

Because of ignorant projections of "phenomena" onto "noumena" (of the variety warned against in MN1), it is relevant to include them in "rupa dependent upon ignorance", because that is what people mistakenly believe they are grasping. Yet it's no more "real" than the jati attributable to I-making etc. which people, under the spell of avijja, will believe is a literal post-mortem rebirth.

Nothing is ever proven as objectively true and valid, by a process which at every turn is dependent upon ignorance. This should be common sense.

People generally don't realise they're grasping at name-and-form, and not the four elements. This is why nama and rupa are conjoined in paticcasamuppada, and not presented separately. It is the objectification itself which one "contacts", and later grasps at.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:22 am
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:15 am
But the rupa in nama-rupa is the four great elements, which according you your other posts are noumena, so you appear to be contradicting yourself.
Not at all. I'm simply saying what I understand to be a sankhata-dhamma, and what is not... which is what this topic is about.

If you wish to make a case that the four great elements are in some way dependent upon avijja, and are thus sankhata-dhammas, then by all means please present it. Otherwise I'll assume we're in agreeance that they're not.

Thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I am not in agreement with this view. Only nibbana is not a sankhata dhamma. The activity of perception, panca khandha, includes the 4 elements and all dhammas in its dream of existence. Interrupt this activity and the creation of the personal ceases. Anatta. Nibbana cannot be equated with paticcasamupadda because nibbana is timeless and undergoes no modification and not subject to any physical laws.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:07 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:30 am
Greetings Saengnapha,
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:26 am
What is the 3 lifetime circular model of dependent orgination? I certainly didn't say anything about that or ever heard of it.
You insisted our experience of paticcasamuppada was "circular". I challenged you to provide a sutta which supported this view.

I asked if you're an advocate of the 3 lifetime model, as that's the most obvious way, which I could understand someone referring to it as circular.... but if it is otherwise, do speak, as you see it.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Okay, now I understand what you are referring to. It is circular from our pov because the cycle of birth and death continues. From the Buddha's pov, there is release from this.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:14 am

Hi Paul
If I am understanding the elements in DO correctly in your understanding they are the perception of solidity, heat, movement... regarding the object rather than the external facts of their existance.

kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:07 pm

Greetings Cittasanto,
Cittasanto wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:14 am
If I am understanding the elements in DO correctly in your understanding they are the perception of solidity, heat, movement... regarding the object rather than the external facts of their existance.
Indeed... after all, something must first be "objectified" before it can even be perceived as "an object". It is an act of fabrication rarely acknowledged in contemporary meditation instruction, which tends to take "the object" for granted, with no consideration for how it came to be regarded as such by the yogi.

The mental machinations involved in the process are explained via the "vortex" of namarupa and vinnana. Ven. Nanananda has expounded upon this point at great lengths and is well worth investigating if you're interested in this point.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:48 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:07 pm
Greetings Cittasanto,
Cittasanto wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:14 am
If I am understanding the elements in DO correctly in your understanding they are the perception of solidity, heat, movement... regarding the object rather than the external facts of their existance.
Indeed... after all, something must first be "objectified" before it can even be perceived as "an object". It is an act of fabrication rarely acknowledged in contemporary meditation instruction, which tends to take "the object" for granted, with no consideration for how it came to be regarded as such by the yogi.

The mental machinations involved in the process are explained via the "vortex" of namarupa and vinnana. Ven. Nanananda has expounded upon this point at great lengths and is well worth investigating if you're interested in this point.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Neuroscientists describe the process of objectification, such as seeing an object, as lightwaves hitting the eye. There is feeling/sensation and you create a picture. You construct an image replete with like/dislike, etc., and then you name it, identify it. Without any prior experience, you cannot know what you are seeing. You learn how to interpret all the sensations, etc. All of this is conditioned perception. You literally construct the world and its 'meaning'. Facts of existence are also constructed as long as there is conditioned perception. The deception seems to lie in our perception which are the 5 khandhas. Subject and object are constructions within this process. It is an internal activity that ceased in the Buddha allowing him to know/see things as they are. Avijja, not knowing, is the first stage of perception. You don't know what you are seeing. It is only after you construct the image and name it, do you 'know' what something is in conventional terms. This knowing, cognition, is obviously not the same thing as vijja. Vijja seems to be the intimate knowing of how this process works and the cessation of any personalization of it.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:04 pm

:goodpost:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Lankamed, NuanceOfSuchness and 88 guests