duality and non-duality in theravada

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
auto
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by auto » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:57 pm

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Now, again, lady, what is the noble eightfold path?"

"This is the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."

"Is the noble eightfold path fabricated or unfabricated?"
"The noble eightfold path is fabricated."
"And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, & discernment] included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold path included under the three aggregates?"

"The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment."
"Now what is concentration, lady, what qualities are its themes, what qualities are its requisites, and what is its development?"

"Singleness of mind is concentration, friend Visakha; the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development."

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:42 am

markandeya wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:24 am
How does the middle path differ from non duality. Its is beyond all extremes, we could say that it is without any opposites. Isnt that what the middle way is emphasizing.
In the 1st sermon, the Middle Path was that avoiding sensuality & self-torment.
markandeya wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:24 am
I also do not see any difference between original Upanishads and pali dhamma.
This would mean you do not believe the Buddha was a Buddha (self-enlightened; without a teacher). In many places, such as the 1st Sermon, the Buddha said he realised things he never heard before.

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

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:42 am

This would mean you do not believe the Buddha was a Buddha (self-enlightened; without a teacher). In many places, such as the 1st Sermon, the Buddha said he realised things he never heard before.
The Buddha reputedly had teachers. Someone like Ramana Maharshi never had a teacher, but he is not called a Buddha. You probably discount Ramana as he was not a Buddhist. Everyone who awakens realizes things he had never heard before.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:22 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
The Buddha reputedly had teachers.
It appears the Buddha did not have any teachers that taught him Buddha-Dhamma (4NTs, 3Cs, D.O, Sunnata, etc). According to the suttas, what Gotama was taught he rejected.
In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

In this way did Uddaka Ramaputta, my companion in the holy life, place me in the position of teacher and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:candle:
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
Someone like Ramana Maharshi never had a teacher...
Too bad. Instead of spending life in a cave, RM could have posted on Dhamma Wheel if his mind was not attached to nothingness & spacing out.
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
You probably discount Ramana as he was not a Buddhist. Everyone who awakens realizes things he had never heard before.
Everyone contemporary I suspect that has awakened heard teachings. While I doubt they were Buddha, the self-declared groomed "parrots" like KM & UG obviously heard lots of teachings.

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

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:38 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:22 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
The Buddha reputedly had teachers.
It appears the Buddha did not have any teachers that taught him Buddha-Dhamma (4NTs, 3Cs, D.O, Sunnata, etc). According to the suttas, what Gotama was taught he rejected.
In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

In this way did Uddaka Ramaputta, my companion in the holy life, place me in the position of teacher and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:candle:
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
Someone like Ramana Maharshi never had a teacher...
Too bad. Instead of spending life in a cave, RM could have posted on Dhamma Wheel if his mind was not attached to nothingness & spacing out.
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:49 am
You probably discount Ramana as he was not a Buddhist. Everyone who awakens realizes things he had never heard before.
Everyone contemporary I suspect that has awakened heard teachings. While I doubt they were Buddha, the self-declared groomed "parrots" like KM & UG obviously heard lots of teachings.
You are making some strange comments, Doo Doot. Are you drunk?

markandeya
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:33 am

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by markandeya » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:42 am
markandeya wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:24 am

This would mean you do not believe the Buddha was a Buddha (self-enlightened; without a teacher). In many places, such as the 1st Sermon, the Buddha said he realised things he never heard before.
Hi DooDoot

your right I do not believe in the Buddha, but that is to do with set of beliefs, I dont hold any :sage:

What does it mean that The buddha realized things that he never heard before.


Gotama Buddha aptly referred to his discovery as puranam anjasam discovery of an ancient path, which means others have realized and discovered before. It may have been unique to Gotama whose life was going from an unawakened condition to Full awakening, so what he saw was new to him, it was a rediscovery that he had attained ( bad wording ) for himself, we could say in modern terms that he became aware of something that he was unaware of before, he is speaking from his own experience and first persons experience, it should be kept in that context and not projected.

Gotama Buddha referred to his discovery as puranam anjasam discovery of an ancient path, which means others have realized and discovered before. It may have been unique to Gotama whose life was going from an unawakened condition to Full awakening, so what he saw was new to him, it was a rediscovery that he had attained ( bad wording ) for himself.

His discovery was compared to being hidden in dense forest, dense forest are greed, hatred and delusion and associated aggregates., followed a way that lead to puranam rajadhanim a bygone ancient kingdom, Buddha rediscovered an ancient path trodden by many in the past pubbakehi sammasambuddhi anuyatam

If anyone who is unenlightened attains to samyak sambodhi or full enlightenment they will also see or experience something that they too never saw or experienced before, but what they see and experience will not be different from previous Buddhas.

Buddha meaning, Bud means awake dha means to hold or be held in, buddha is held in the awakened state ( although its not a state )


Personally I think its a dangerous game to quote suttas in literal terms. Sutta means string, we could call it the dharma string theory that connects mind to wisdom of the Dharma as taught by the awakened Buddha, the more literal the suttas become the less they are understood. Mostly we are still in a phase of translation. They are t meditated upon and engrained with mediation experience and cultivation of the path while mind is being purified.

I will refrain from talking about the Upanishads rishi unless there is due understanding of what they say or reveal. Upa means near or close shad means seat or sitting, it gets translated as sitting near to Guru or teacher, this is not a good translation shad means seat of consciousness Rishi's of the Upanishads are known to be speaking Anubhava pratyaksha, which is para vak and para vidya, they are directly perceiving experiencing the Absolute Brahma, which cant be conceptualized or explained only experienced. I am not to fond of the imperial cultural assignation of the British Rule and their translations on dharma. i will only entertain discussions that know what the essence of these subjects are about. Usually there is a poor understanding of the Rishis as something opposed to Buddha Dharma of Gotama, and sometimes the other way round. This has a cause and is foreign to Dharma traditions.

:anjali:

Dinsdale
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pm
This is a key question. Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda, in the "Nibbana Sermons" [Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled. Library Edition (Sermons 1 – 33) http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/] and other works discusses this in great detail.
P204: The discrimination between an ‘internal’ and an ‘external’ is the
outcome of the inability to penetrate name-and-form, to see through
it. There is an apparent duality: I, as one who sees, and name-and-
form, as the objects seen. Between them there is a dichotomy as in-
ternal and external. It is on this very dichotomy that the six sense-
bases are ‘based’. Feeling and all the rest of it come on top of those
six sense-bases. Craving and grasping follow suit, as a result of
which those dogmatists get caught up in the vicious cycle of depend-
ent arising and keep running round in sasāra as the Buddha has de-
clared.
A couple of challenges to this interpretation:

1. In the suttas the description of the name+form nidana looks roughly equivalent to the five aggregates, so I fail to see how it could equate merely to the "objects seen" by "me". This interpretation seems to hinge on the idea of a mutual dependence of consciousness and name+form, and the interplay between them. The problem here is that most DO suttas don't describe this, they actually describe name+form arising in dependence upon consciousness.
2. In the suttas the sense-bases and contact are described in terms of physical organs and processes, and not as a purely mental bifurcation of internal/external. For example eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form - and note that replacing "eye" by "ability to see" doesn't change the basic meaning here.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16426
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:24 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
1. In the suttas the description of the name+form nidana looks roughly equivalent to the five aggregates, so I fail to see how it could equate merely to the "objects seen" by "me". This interpretation seems to hinge on the idea of a mutual dependence of consciousness and name+form, and the interplay between them. The problem here is that most DO suttas don't describe this, they actually describe name+form arising in dependence upon consciousness.
Yes, it is true that the vortex suttas are a minority. However, it's also clear that name-and-form does not include consciousness:
And what are name and form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. This is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form. Such is name and such is form. These are called name and form.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato#sc11
See also : Nāmarūpa - Named Form? viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
2. In the suttas the sense-bases and contact are described in terms of physical organs and processes, and not as a purely mental bifurcation of internal/external. For example eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form - and note that replacing "eye" by "ability to see" doesn't change the basic meaning here.
Well, of course, that's one of the key parts of the argument. That the bifurcation goes beyond the raw experience:
“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In what is seen there must be only what is seen, in what is heard there must be only what is heard, in what is sensed there must be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there must be only what is cognized. This is the way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself.
https://suttacentral.net/ud1.10/en/anandajoti#sc16
:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by DooDoot » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:27 am

markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
What does it mean that The buddha realized things that he never heard before.
Its written in the suttas:
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:' This noble truth of stress has been comprehended.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. Origination, origination.’ Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never before heard.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_10.html
:alien:
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
Gotama Buddha aptly referred to his discovery as puranam anjasam discovery of an ancient path, which means others have realized and discovered before.
The sutta refers to Buddhas of the past rather than the Upanishadic teachings.
Thus is the origination of this entire mass of stress. Origination, origination.' Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.

In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... 5.than.htm
:candle:
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
....
Everything you wrote is unrelated to the Upanishads. When Gotama searched, any "ancient path" had been lost.
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
I will refrain from talking about the Upanishads rishi unless there is due understanding of what they say or reveal. Upa means near or close shad means seat or sitting, it gets translated as sitting near to Guru or teacher, this is not a good translation shad means seat of consciousness Rishi's of the Upanishads are known to be speaking Anubhava pratyaksha, which is para vak and para vidya, they are directly perceiving experiencing the Absolute Brahma, which cant be conceptualized or explained only experienced.
It seems the Buddha did not teach "non-conceptualization" as Nirvana. Absolute Brahma (Self) appears unrelated to Nibbana.
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
I am not to fond of the imperial cultural assignation of the British Rule and their translations on dharma. i will only entertain discussions that know what the essence of these subjects are about.
Absolute Brahma appears to have no reality or essence. My mind has ever experienced "Brahma" in meditation. In meditation, my mind has only experienced elements (dhatu) , aggregates (khandha) and sense objects (ayatana). But no "Brahma". .
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
Usually there is a poor understanding of the Rishis as something opposed to Buddha Dharma of Gotama
The Dhamma of the Buddha is said to be "well spoken, inviting inspection, visible here & now", etc. Where as the Rishis is just probably a collection of different teachings by different gurus about spacing out in non-conceptualization and then clinging to & conceptualizing that so-called non-conceptualisation as "God" or Brahma" or "Atman" or "Whatever".
markandeya wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:45 am
This has a cause and is foreign to Dharma traditions.
The Buddhist teachings appear not found in any Vedic or Upanishad, per the historical evidence. What the Risis seek, Gotama rejected when rejecting his 1st two gurus. As soon as the idea of "cant be conceptualized or explained" is mentioned; this appears not Buddhism. Buddha explained Nirvana is the end of craving and selfing. When the mind is free from craving & self, it can engage in speaking concepts, like the Buddha with 84,000 teachings. Non-conceptualisation is samadhi; one mundane aspect of the Buddha's path.
Patanjali’s Eightfold Path of Yoga:

Yama (moral conduct)
Niyama (religious observances)
Asana: right posture
Pranayama: control of prana, the subtle life currents in the body
Pratyahara: interiorization through withdrawal of the senses from external objects
Dharana: focused concentration; holding the mind to one thought or object
Dhyana: meditation, absorption in the vast perception of God in one of His infinite aspects
Samadhi: superconscious experience of the oneness of the individualized soul with Cosmic Spirit

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/The_Eightf ... 0VhFdUzZEY

markandeya
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:33 am

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by markandeya » Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:19 am

:juggling:

Hi DooDoot

I think your understanding of the Upanishads and the rishis wich equates to zero understanding and is just sticking to an uneducated view and your textbook quoting of buddha dharma is over literate and out of context. But I will leave it there as its hard for me to talk to books.
you said
Absolute Brahma appears to have no reality or essence. My mind has ever experienced "Brahma" in meditation. In meditation, my mind has only experienced elements (dhatu) , aggregates (khandha) and sense objects (ayatana). But no "Brahma". .

if your saying this then you are claiming that you have full experience of absolute reality, have you, are you fully enlightened.

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

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:37 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pm
This is a key question. Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda, in the "Nibbana Sermons" [Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled. Library Edition (Sermons 1 – 33) http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/] and other works discusses this in great detail.
P204: The discrimination between an ‘internal’ and an ‘external’ is the
outcome of the inability to penetrate name-and-form, to see through
it. There is an apparent duality: I, as one who sees, and name-and-
form, as the objects seen. Between them there is a dichotomy as in-
ternal and external. It is on this very dichotomy that the six sense-
bases are ‘based’. Feeling and all the rest of it come on top of those
six sense-bases. Craving and grasping follow suit, as a result of
which those dogmatists get caught up in the vicious cycle of depend-
ent arising and keep running round in sasāra as the Buddha has de-
clared.
A couple of challenges to this interpretation:

1. In the suttas the description of the name+form nidana looks roughly equivalent to the five aggregates, so I fail to see how it could equate merely to the "objects seen" by "me". This interpretation seems to hinge on the idea of a mutual dependence of consciousness and name+form, and the interplay between them. The problem here is that most DO suttas don't describe this, they actually describe name+form arising in dependence upon consciousness.
2. In the suttas the sense-bases and contact are described in terms of physical organs and processes, and not as a purely mental bifurcation of internal/external. For example eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form - and note that replacing "eye" by "ability to see" doesn't change the basic meaning here.
Unless you are an Arahant, you cannot analyze DO successfully. Why? Because what Nanananda describes is the illusion that veils this seeing, the subject/object dichotomy. Unless this dichotomy is put aside, the focus on DO is always interpreted through this dichotomy and therefore inconclusive in one's own life. The best you could hope for is an intellectual understanding which is not the same as true insight. The subject/object duality is key to breaking through, or rather, dissolution of this view.

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

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:51 am

markandeya wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:19 am
:juggling:

Hi DooDoot

I think your understanding of the Upanishads and the rishis wich equates to zero understanding and is just sticking to an uneducated view and your textbook quoting of buddha dharma is over literate and out of context. But I will leave it there as its hard for me to talk to books.
you said
Absolute Brahma appears to have no reality or essence. My mind has ever experienced "Brahma" in meditation. In meditation, my mind has only experienced elements (dhatu) , aggregates (khandha) and sense objects (ayatana). But no "Brahma". .

if your saying this then you are claiming that you have full experience of absolute reality, have you, are you fully enlightened.
Doo Doot is decidedly against anything that is not said by the Buddha or is not put into a Theravada context. If the Buddha didn't say it, there is no way to discuss with him. This would include the use of Brahman in referring to Absolute Reality. The misunderstanding of essence is one of the chief bones that Buddhists pick with Vedic teachings. My feeling is that it is an interpretive mistake that has been perpetuated for millenia. The scholars have misled us. The term ineffable, meaning impossible to describe, leaves room for so much interpretive analysis that leads to further discursive thinking taking us further away from what is ineffable. Nibbana is also said to be ineffable. So which ineffable is the true ineffable? Ha! Let the scholars figure it out.

markandeya
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:33 am

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by markandeya » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:25 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:51 am

Doo Doot is decidedly against anything that is not said by the Buddha or is not put into a Theravada context. If the Buddha didn't say it, there is no way to discuss with him. This would include the use of Brahman in referring to Absolute Reality. The misunderstanding of essence is one of the chief bones that Buddhists pick with Vedic teachings. My feeling is that it is an interpretive mistake that has been perpetuated for millenia. The scholars have misled us. The term ineffable, meaning impossible to describe, leaves room for so much interpretive analysis that leads to further discursive thinking taking us further away from what is ineffable. Nibbana is also said to be ineffable. So which ineffable is the true ineffable? Ha! Let the scholars figure it out.
Hi Saengnapha

There are plenty of references to Brahma in pali tradition.

Yes it seems a bit like Buddhist gone born again Christianity in a new dress, if i want bible lectures and book quotes I would go somewhere else. I saw just recently some of his comments on Ramana Mahasrhi, what more can I say.... His understanding of Atma would not get far with Vedantists.

my personal experience of Theravada as per Ajhan Chahs lineage including Ajahn Mun, Ajhan Lee , Acharya mahaboowa ( his teachings on chitta is completely the same as Vedanta) spending time with the Theravada tradition has been a great synthesis with my practice of Vedanta, I am officially in one sense connected to lineages of Adi Shankara where there is no conflict with Buddha Dharma, until the scholars came along and started misquoted and enforcing foreign concepts in the dharma and this has effected both sides of the family to some extent, but its getting better and will continue to find its original union. English translations are still in an early period and there is also cultural conditioning to take into account. But i dont want to make this an issue of comparing the two great traditions. I have spent time over the years with Theravada traditions and I have never really had any conflict, I know many monks who study the Upanishads. There is also a reemerging push in Sri Lanka to get better translations, now that people in Asia have become more fluent in English, both the pali traditions and Sanskrit traditions are under review and about time, it will bear well for future generations. I have only ever really found contradictions in the scholarly works based on a means of education that is actually foreign to dharma practice, and quoting suttas is not sutta , there is no intention in sutta to build up intellectual verification.

You have picked up on an important issue about scholars misleading us. I think some understanding of history is needed and more time living and learning from living traditions that have kept the dharma in tact for thousands of years, they still exists very much today.

If a separate thread comes up maybe I can contribute more to this area

If your reading this Doodoot please dont take it personally but I do mean what I say, maybe it will be for your benefit in the future :)

:anjali:

Dinsdale
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:25 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:37 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pm
This is a key question. Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda, in the "Nibbana Sermons" [Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled. Library Edition (Sermons 1 – 33) http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/] and other works discusses this in great detail.

A couple of challenges to this interpretation:

1. In the suttas the description of the name+form nidana looks roughly equivalent to the five aggregates, so I fail to see how it could equate merely to the "objects seen" by "me". This interpretation seems to hinge on the idea of a mutual dependence of consciousness and name+form, and the interplay between them. The problem here is that most DO suttas don't describe this, they actually describe name+form arising in dependence upon consciousness.
2. In the suttas the sense-bases and contact are described in terms of physical organs and processes, and not as a purely mental bifurcation of internal/external. For example eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form - and note that replacing "eye" by "ability to see" doesn't change the basic meaning here.
Unless you are an Arahant, you cannot analyze DO successfully. Why? Because what Nanananda describes is the illusion that veils this seeing, the subject/object dichotomy. Unless this dichotomy is put aside, the focus on DO is always interpreted through this dichotomy and therefore inconclusive in one's own life. The best you could hope for is an intellectual understanding which is not the same as true insight. The subject/object duality is key to breaking through, or rather, dissolution of this view.
There are many interpretations of DO. Perhaps you could explain exactly what is wrong with the challenges I have made above.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: duality and non-duality in theravada

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:35 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:24 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
1. In the suttas the description of the name+form nidana looks roughly equivalent to the five aggregates, so I fail to see how it could equate merely to the "objects seen" by "me". This interpretation seems to hinge on the idea of a mutual dependence of consciousness and name+form, and the interplay between them. The problem here is that most DO suttas don't describe this, they actually describe name+form arising in dependence upon consciousness.
Yes, it is true that the vortex suttas are a minority. However, it's also clear that name-and-form does not include consciousness:
And what are name and form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. This is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form. Such is name and such is form. These are called name and form.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato#sc11
But contact is included here, and contact involves consciousness, which means that "mentality-materiality" is in fact a reasonable translation for name-rupa.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm
2. In the suttas the sense-bases and contact are described in terms of physical organs and processes, and not as a purely mental bifurcation of internal/external. For example eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form - and note that replacing "eye" by "ability to see" doesn't change the basic meaning here.
mikenz66 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:24 pm
Well, of course, that's one of the key parts of the argument. That the bifurcation goes beyond the raw experience:
I think you could say that self-view is derived from the raw experience. Nanananda seems to be arguing that the bifurcation is a purely mental process, I am observing that it isn't described like this in the suttas. In the suttas the initial bifurcation is physical and functional, based on sense organs and sense objects.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 81 guests