Saengnapha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:58 am
No, neither positive nor negative. Just the way it is. We cannot 'know' what the cessation of DO is really like. The paradigm has changed.
Well, according to the suttas, and my experience, how it is is not satisfactory. And according to the suttas the cessation of DO is a good thing (i.e. nibbana).
Of course, if you don't accept that the suttas are useful, that's fine. But not relevant here.
Saengnapha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:57 amI think you are confused about what I wrote. I am not talking about Mahayana or Nagarjuna.
I never said you were talking about Mahayana or Nagarjuna. i said what you wrote "sounds like" the idiosyncrasies of Nagarjuna
Based on the suttas, the term "Paticcasamuppada" appears to refer to 12 links/conditions leading to the arising of suffering
Where as what you posted about, namely: "causal dependent nature of all arisings", is probably better referred to as "Idappaccayatā".
The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:
1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
Saengnapha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:58 am
No, neither positive nor negative. Just the way it is. We cannot 'know' what the cessation of DO is really like. The paradigm has changed.
Well, according to the suttas, and my experience, how it is is not satisfactory. And according to the suttas the cessation of DO is a good thing (i.e. nibbana).
Of course, if you don't accept that the suttas are useful, that's fine. But not relevant here.
Mike
I can see that my words seem to be giving you a different meaning than I intended. I have no problem with the way you explained it. One of my points is that you do not experience the cessation of DO. The experiencer is not there and the paradigm has shifted in a way that is only conceptual to someone that cessation has not occurred. We only experience DO and can talk about that. How do you talk about something that is not your experience?
Saengnapha wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:58 am
No, neither positive nor negative. Just the way it is. We cannot 'know' what the cessation of DO is really like. The paradigm has changed.
Well, according to the suttas, and my experience, how it is is not satisfactory. And according to the suttas the cessation of DO is a good thing (i.e. nibbana).
Of course, if you don't accept that the suttas are useful, that's fine. But not relevant here.
Mike
I can see that my words seem to be giving you a different meaning than I intended. I have no problem with the way you explained it. One of my points is that you do not experience the cessation of DO. The experiencer is not there and the paradigm has shifted in a way that is only conceptual to someone that cessation has not occurred. We only experience DO and can talk about that. How do you talk about something that is not your experience?
There are many ways that people talk about something that is not in their experience. For example, you have done it here by assuming that you know what other people experience and what they do not experience.
chownah
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:54 pm
Well, according to the suttas, and my experience, how it is is not satisfactory. And according to the suttas the cessation of DO is a good thing (i.e. nibbana).
Of course, if you don't accept that the suttas are useful, that's fine. But not relevant here.
Mike
I can see that my words seem to be giving you a different meaning than I intended. I have no problem with the way you explained it. One of my points is that you do not experience the cessation of DO. The experiencer is not there and the paradigm has shifted in a way that is only conceptual to someone that cessation has not occurred. We only experience DO and can talk about that. How do you talk about something that is not your experience?
There are many ways that people talk about something that is not in their experience. For example, you have done it here by assuming that you know what other people experience and what they do not experience.
chownah
Yes, we make many assumptions. I am not exempt from this and that is my point.
Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 am
I can see that my words seem to be giving you a different meaning than I intended. I have no problem with the way you explained it. One of my points is that you do not experience the cessation of DO. The experiencer is not there and the paradigm has shifted in a way that is only conceptual to someone that cessation has not occurred. We only experience DO and can talk about that. How do you talk about something that is not your experience?
There are many ways that people talk about something that is not in their experience. For example, you have done it here by assuming that you know what other people experience and what they do not experience.
chownah
Yes, we make many assumptions. I am not exempt from this and that is my point.
I guess then that there might be a way for the cessation of DO to be realized....and that if we want to deny that possibility we should restrict our assertions to our own realizations.....maybe I am wrong.
chownah
I guess then that there might be a way for the cessation of DO to be realized....and that if we want to deny that possibility we should restrict our assertions to our own realizations.....maybe I am wrong.
chownah
The answer is contained in the 1st condition of paticca samuppada. Avijja paccaya sankhara is this 1st condition and to counter avijja we have to understand the four noble truths .( Back to square one) And descend from there.
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:57 am
Retro is, of course presenting his interpretation, which is influenced by Vens Nanananda and Nanavira. But do note that in the sutta you quoted one of the perversions is:
'Self' with regard to not-self is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view.
So, if we accept the idea that DO is essentially about the arising of a sense of self then that's where it fits.
DO as a description of how self-view arises, and then leads to suffering? It's an interesting interpretation, the question is whether it's supported by the suttas in general, and the nidana "definitions" in particular ( SN12.2 and MN9 ).
chownah wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:49 am
There are many ways that people talk about something that is not in their experience. For example, you have done it here by assuming that you know what other people experience and what they do not experience.
chownah
Yes, we make many assumptions. I am not exempt from this and that is my point.
I guess then that there might be a way for the cessation of DO to be realized....and that if we want to deny that possibility we should restrict our assertions to our own realizations.....maybe I am wrong.
chownah
Chownah,
I don't doubt that cessation is possible as we have examples of it throughout history. Like everything else, the proper conditions must be there first such as disinterest, dispassion, release, etc. But it's one thing to postulate all this and another to live it. The philosophizing and the realization are two different activities. If you are someone who meets these conditions, you will not be affected by how someone asserts themselves. That goes for myself as well. Chat boards are just that. They are as illusory as everything else.
