Bundles of reeds simile.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16477
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:54 pm

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.

:heart:
Mike

SarathW
Posts: 10375
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by SarathW » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:20 pm

This sounds Mahayana or Nāgārjuna. It's not what is found in the Pali. In the Pali, DO is called "the wrong way" or "the wrong path".
With the little knowledge I have, I felt that Mahayana Buddha is a dependently originated phenomena.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:39 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:57 am
I 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".

:smile:
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.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... 0Kamma.htm

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:54 pm
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.

:heart:
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?

chownah
Posts: 7583
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by chownah » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:49 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:54 pm
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.

:heart:
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

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:29 am

chownah wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:49 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 am
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.

:heart:
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.

chownah
Posts: 7583
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by chownah » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:46 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:29 am
chownah wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:49 am
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

justindesilva
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by justindesilva » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:56 am

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.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6097
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:15 am

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 ).
Buddha save me from new-agers!

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:16 am

chownah wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:46 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:29 am
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: auto, budo, denise and 104 guests