A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am

SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
I don't know what prompts these fabrications of yours. it seems you would like to negate that the experiencing of objects is based on the aggregates.
Changing the subject, again? The Buddha defined fabricators (sankhara) as kaya, vaci & citta sankhara and not what you keep posting sankhara is in D.O.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
Not accepting "programmed by nature" does not necessitate believing in "programmed by God".
You appear to keep posting volition or self-thought creates everything.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
Both are unacceptable metaphysical views.
The Buddha taught about materiality.

You claim there are aggregates then ILLOGICALLY deny there is the aggregate of materiality; and deny biology is involved in sexual lust.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
What I am saying is: Sotapanna is NOT an arahant because habitual self-identification with aggregates has not been abandoned by sotapanna, only conceptual belief has been abandoned.
The above is wrong. Arahants have jhanas to make sensuality unattractive and have deeper insight into the 3 characteristics. Sotapanna have clear insight into ANATTA but is not significant enough to stop 100% of self thoughts.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
The topic was not pleasant feelings but sensual desire. Desire derives from self-identification :roll: with feeling :roll: , it is craving :roll: :? .
Self-identification derives from desire and desire derives from feelings.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
deceptive self is there from the outset
yep - theism :) - Atman or I AM is there from the outset :twothumbsup: :rofl:
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
'self-identification'. This is not different from craving because it is the impulse to make 'mine'.
'Self-identification' is different from craving. Refer to MN 148.

:strawman:
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
Not accepting "programmed by nature" does not necessitate believing in "programmed by God".
You appear to keep posting volition or self-thought creates everything.
How come you are talking about creation? There is dependent origination.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
Both are unacceptable metaphysical views.
The Buddha taught about materiality. It is your denial of this which is UNACCEPTABLE.
I don't deny materiality.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
You claim there are aggregates then ILLOGICALLY deny there is the aggregate of materiality; and deny biology is involved in sexual lust.

:rolleye:
I used the term 'form' for the aggregate you seem to call 'materiality'.
Biology is a worldly science and has its use in worldly contexts. In the context of Dhamma it has no use other than exemplifying a worldly non-dhammic view.

char101
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:21 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by char101 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 am

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:22 am
char101 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:47 am
Or in other words, the understanding of language might not fully describe the meaning of the teachings of the Buddha. What is written in the texts should only be taken as instructions to practice. From practice, true understanding will grow. Learning -> practice -> understanding. Don't expect to understand the meaning of the words by just reading about it.
Would it be more accurate to say that the mere understanding of language does not necessarily make what the Buddha taught meaningful?
I think it is more like driving. No matter how many books someone who has never drive before has read, he will not understand the true experience of driving, the initial fear, the coordination, the dimension of the car, etc. From reading the books someone can make an imagination of what driving feels like, but it is more of a wild guess, and some guess can be far off from the truth.
The above distinction might explain why some people read many suttas and still lack attainments, and why some examples in the suttas show people who listened to one sermon and became realized.
Based on the discrimination of people in the puggalapanatti, those who can understand the suttas based on hearings are special type of people, so we should not take it as a general case (Four Classes of Individuals who encounter the Sasana).

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:06 am

SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am
How come you are talking about creation? There is dependent origination.
You have posted SELF or I AM is there from the beginning. Sounds very Biblical.
John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
:alien:
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am
I don't deny materiality.
:strawman:
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am
I used the term 'form' for the aggregate you seem to call 'materiality'.Biology is a worldly science and has its use in worldly contexts. In the context of Dhamma it has no use other than exemplifying a worldly non-dhammic view.
MN 140: :roll:
What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.

“What, bhikkhu, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to, that is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle, snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the external water element are simply water element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the water element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the water element.

“What, bhikkhu, is the fire element? The fire element may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to, that is, that by which one is warmed, ages, and is consumed, and that by which what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets completely digested, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to: this is called the internal fire element. Now both the internal fire element and the external fire element are simply fire element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the fire element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the fire element.

“What, bhikkhu, is the air element? The air element may be either internal or external. What is the internal air element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and clung-to, that is, up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the belly, winds in the bowels, winds that course through the limbs, in-breath and out-breath, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is air, airy, and clung-to: this is called the internal air element. Now both the internal air element and the external air element are simply air element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the air element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the air element.

“What, bhikkhu, is the space element? The space element may be either internal or external. What is the internal space element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to, that is, the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the door of the mouth, and that aperture whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to: this is called the internal space element. Now both the internal space element and the external space element are simply space element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the space element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the space element.

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi
Below:
It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Below is the strongest, which describes the cessation of consciousness in the living being:
"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"

"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications [breathing] have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications [thoughts] ... his mental fabrications [perceptions & feelings] have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.

But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided & his [physical sense organ] faculties are exceptionally clear [clean]. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."

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

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:13 am

SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am
Biology is a worldly science and has its use in worldly contexts. In the context of Dhamma it has no use other than exemplifying a worldly non-dhammic view.
If biology was non-Dhammic, why did the Buddha recommend various corpse meditations? :shrug: :roll:

If sexual desire was unrelated to the physical body, as you claim, why did Buddha instruct monks to meditate on rotting bodies?
Attachments
asuba.jpg
asuba.jpg (11.62 KiB) Viewed 351 times
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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:19 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
What I am saying is: Sotapanna is NOT an arahant because habitual self-identification with aggregates has not been abandoned by sotapanna, only conceptual belief has been abandoned.
The above is wrong. Arahants have jhanas to make sensuality unattractive and have deeper insight into the 3 characteristics.
Arahants have deeper insight, ok. Otherwise they wouldn't have abandoned self-conceit and self-identification.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
deceptive self is there from the outset
yep - theism :) - Atman or I AM is there from the outset :twothumbsup: :rofl:
Why theism? Deceptive self is there from the outset which means starting with birth. Ignorance is innate since birth is caused by ignorance. That's the cause of samsara. But 'innate' does not mean 'permanently and inherently existing' because innate ignorance can be abandoned thought the Eightfold Path.

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:46 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
'self-identification'. This is not different from craving because it is the impulse to make 'mine'.
'Self-identification' is different from craving. Refer to MN 148.
yes it is different but since 'self-identification' and craving necessarily condition each other they may be pragmatically equalled.

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:29 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:02 am
Biology is a worldly science and has its use in worldly contexts. In the context of Dhamma it has no use other than exemplifying a worldly non-dhammic view.
If biology was non-Dhammic, why did the Buddha recommend various corpse meditations? :shrug: :roll:
If you are a biologist by profession it may appear to you that the Buddha recommends biological practices. But actually there is no need to associate corpse meditations with the worldly science biology.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:13 am
If sexual desire was unrelated to the physical body, as you claim, why did Buddha instruct monks to meditate on rotting bodies?
I denied the relevance of biology which is a worldly science for practicing the Eightfold Path. I don't deny that sexual desire might end with body part penis penetrating the body part vagina and that sexual desire might be aroused by objects that are known as "rotting bodies" under other conditions of time and location.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2604
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by Bundokji » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:35 am

char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 am
I think it is more like driving. No matter how many books someone who has never drive before has read, he will not understand the true experience of driving, the initial fear, the coordination, the dimension of the car, etc. From reading the books someone can make an imagination of what driving feels like, but it is more of a wild guess, and some guess can be far off from the truth.
Each simile has its own limitations. I don't dispute the simile you provided, but i try to be aware of the following when i read it:

1- The emphasis on the experiential nature of insight has its draw backs in the sense that the practitioner would be seeking what he imagines to be the "ideal" experience, which is an integral part of what constitutes clinging.

2- While objective similes try to counter the role of subjectivity in clinging, it tends to overlook the role of subjectivity in associating clinging with meaning, and why the mere reading of suttas in most cases does not translate into release. Its worth contemplating how people use "meaning" to seek what is "meaningful".

Having suffering as the entry point to the teachings is an emphasis on the role of subjectivity in constructing the self (which is the ultimate truth in the perceived reality of the puthujjana). In this context, objectivity seems to be the going against the grain. Through going against the grain, the practitioner might see how objectivity cam be the rationalization of desire, and the centrality of craving as a driving force behind his/her actions.
Based on the discrimination of people in the puggalapanatti, those who can understand the suttas based on hearings are special type of people, so we should not take it as a general case (Four Classes of Individuals who encounter the Sasana).
The existence of exceptions serves to reveal the limitations of the general case. As such, if someone is truly seeking to be an exception himself would ask: why he is not one? considering that the general case is one of corruption and ignorance as per the teachings:
Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
I would say that an overall dissatisfaction with the general case can be a useful mindset to be adopted by the practitioner.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

char101
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:21 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by char101 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:54 am

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:35 am
char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 am
I think it is more like driving. No matter how many books someone who has never drive before has read, he will not understand the true experience of driving, the initial fear, the coordination, the dimension of the car, etc. From reading the books someone can make an imagination of what driving feels like, but it is more of a wild guess, and some guess can be far off from the truth.
Each simile has its own limitations. I don't dispute the simile you provided, but i try to be aware of the following when i read it:
I think this is exactly the case why the same words has different meaning to different people. We see the same words but interpret it differently. Only when one has experienced it can people agree on the true meaning behind the words.

Interpretations are subjective and can be different from person to person while experience are objective. Of course this is excluding subjective experience where people experience sense objects and form meanings but experiences where people view it with mindfulness and insight.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:21 pm

SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:19 am
Deceptive self is there from the outset which means starting with birth.
MN 64 says the new born infant has no self-identity. Yet the new born infant obviously feels pleasure when fed and craves for mother's milk. Yet the new born child has no notion of self yet in the mind. Eventually, the infants 1st notion of self will form around these feelings & cravings for food, its mother, etc. For a young child, contact, feeling & craving will precede the first arising of self-identity. The suttas say:
When he grows up and his faculties mature still further, the youth enjoys himself provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure, with forms cognizable by the eye… sounds cognizable by the ear…odours cognizable by the nose… flavours cognizable by the tongue…tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust.

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [becoming] comes to be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
:alien:
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
'self-identification' and craving necessarily condition each other
Not in the experience of a Noble Practitioner. The Noble Practitioner meditates upon D.O. from the perspective of the void empty mind therefore the self-arising starts at upadana (attachment).

But for a puthujjana spinning around in papanca, sure, self-identity is arising at ignorance with the asava of (past) bhava. But the Noble Path is not practiced by puthujjana.

Note: I have read your posts on the other forum where you believe nama-rupa means "subject-object". The Pali suttas don't teach this, as far as I am aware. This sounds like Hinduism.
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:29 am
If you are a biologist by profession it may appear to you that the Buddha recommends biological practices. But actually there is no need to associate corpse meditations with the worldly science biology.
Irrelevant to the reality sexual desire is related to biology. The Buddha said:
Suppose there was a girl of the brahmins, aristocrats, or householders in her fifteenth or sixteenth year, neither too tall nor too short, neither too thin nor too fat, neither too dark nor too fair. Is she not at the height of her beauty and prettiness?”

https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato
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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:29 pm

char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:54 am
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:35 am
char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 am
I think it is more like driving. No matter how many books someone who has never drive before has read, he will not understand the true experience of driving, the initial fear, the coordination, the dimension of the car, etc. From reading the books someone can make an imagination of what driving feels like, but it is more of a wild guess, and some guess can be far off from the truth.
Each simile has its own limitations. I don't dispute the simile you provided, but i try to be aware of the following when i read it:
I think this is exactly the case why the same words has different meaning to different people. We see the same words but interpret it differently. Only when one has experienced it can people agree on the true meaning behind the words.
People can agree if - and only if - they use the same words to express their experience. But using the same words to express their experience does not prove sameness of experience.
char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:54 am
Interpretations are subjective and can be different from person to person while experience are objective.
That does not make sense. What is the basis of objectivity of experience? The words used to express experience? But that is subjectivity.

char101 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:54 am
Of course this is excluding subjective experience where people experience sense objects and form meanings but experiences where people view it with mindfulness and insight.
You are clinging to your idea of objectivity. But there is no objectivity other than belief in objectivity.

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:21 pm
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:19 am
Deceptive self is there from the outset which means starting with birth.
MN 64 says the new born infant has no self-identity.
That's not true. Im MN64 it reads:
For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion 'personality'
you are confusing the conceptual notion with the perception. Self-perception is there starting with birth.
You are comitting the same error in the context of the sotapanna since you do not understand the difference between conceptual self view/belief and self-perception.

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:21 pm
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:25 am
'self-identification' and craving necessarily condition each other
Not in the experience of a Noble Practitioner.
Obviously also in the experience of a Noble Practitioner since the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desire. However the sotapanna has control and is mindful of what is going on. And this capacity depends on having directly 'seen' the absence of self and all that pertains to the self.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:21 pm
Note: I have read your posts on the other forum where you believe nama-rupa means "subject-object". The Pali suttas don't teach this, as far as I am aware. This sounds like Hinduism.
I have never written something like that.

Edit: I have thought about it and there certainly is a context when nama-rupa implies subject-object. Maybe I have written about it somewhere? I can't recall. However since form refers to the objects of the five bodily senses and nama is "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" there is certainly a connotation of 'subject-object' in 'name-and form'. But that is only one of many connotations and certainly not the dominant one.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:21 pm
SteRo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:29 am
If you are a biologist by profession it may appear to you that the Buddha recommends biological practices. But actually there is no need to associate corpse meditations with the worldly science biology.
Irrelevant to the reality sexual desire is related to biology. The Buddha said:
Suppose there was a girl of the brahmins, aristocrats, or householders in her fifteenth or sixteenth year, neither too tall nor too short, neither too thin nor too fat, neither too dark nor too fair. Is she not at the height of her beauty and prettiness?”

https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato
Obviously you prefer to merge worldly and dhamma views. If this helps you in your practice then fine.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by DooDoot » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am

SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
That's not true. Im MN64 it reads:
MN 64 says the new child has no sakkāyadiṭṭhi. The translation is irrelevant. :roll:
MN 64 wrote:For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them?

Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?
:alien:
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
you are confusing the conceptual notion with the perception. Self-perception is there starting with birth.
Sorry the above is not found anywhere in the suttas. The above is nonsense.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
the difference between conceptual self view/belief and self-perception.
The above is even more nonsensical.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
Obviously also in the experience of a Noble Practitioner since the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desire.
The above is irrelevant to the discussion. The point i made is self-identity is ultimately arising at 9th condition; as was already quoted from many suttas, which you choose to ignore.

The suttas say self-identity is born from craving but you continue to argue, without any sutta support, that craving is born from self-identity.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
However the sotapanna has control and is mindful of what is going on.
sotapanna does not have 100% control and is not 100% mindful; particularly when not in formal meditation.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
And this capacity depends on having directly 'seen' the absence of self and all that pertains to the self.
No. The sotapanna seeing clearly the absence of self will not uproot 100% of the defilements.

Please stop repeating the same old Mahayana nonsense that believes the start of the Path to be the end of the Path.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
I have never written something like that.
But you have. I read it on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
However since form refers to the objects of the five bodily senses
But it doesn't. Form refers to the body composed of the four elements, born from mother & father, fed with rice & porridge, per the suttas.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
and nama is "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" there is certainly a connotation of 'subject-object' in 'name-and form'.
But it is not. "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" is not a connotation of 'subject-object'. Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention is giving inappropriate intention & inappropriate attention towards feeling, perception & contact with the ignorant sankharas.

Ignorance conditions ignorant sankharas, which conditions consciousness of these sankharas. Then, at nama-rupa, the mind feels, perceives, has contact with and forms inappropriate intention & gives inappropriate attention towards these sankharas (rather than gives appropriate attention to eradicating the sankharas). By giving inappropriate attention to these sankharas, the cycle of D.O. continues to spin towards seeking sense gratification via the sense doors.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
But that is only one of many connotations and certainly not the dominant one.
Irrelevant. The Buddha never taught about subject-object. This is from Hinduism.
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
Obviously you prefer to merge worldly and dhamma views.
For you, dhamma appears to be mind-only solipsism Yogachara. The Buddha did not each this. To believe sexual desire is self-mind-made without any relationship to biological chemistry & hormones seems out of touch with reality. It seems superstitious.

I posted from many suttas the Buddha said sensuality was first & foremost an "element" ("dhatu"). But it seems you chose to ignore this. You seem to ignore the reality there is the element of sensuality bubbling up inside lifeforms, which then causes their minds to have sensual thoughts. I posted a video about how female dogs have "heat" but you continue to argue sensuality is something 100% thought-self-fabrication. You seem to believe insects have a "personality" or "self-identity", which causes insects to have sexual desire & sexual intercourse. It follows you seem to believe when billions of individual sperm are ejaculated into a woman's uterus; each of these billions of sperms each has a self-identity causing these sperms to volitionally seek union with the woman's ovum. It seems you must impute 'self' upon everything & are unable to open the mind to the mystery of how various selfless forces of nature cause creation (such as seeds growing & reproducing, bacteria growing, etc). You appear to believe "the self" or mind creates the feeling of hunger rather than the physical body has hunger pains. Your views appear similar to Christians who cannot accommodate the often inexplicable mysteries of nature's creation & therefore must argue a god created nature.

Kind regards :smile:



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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

SteRo
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SteRo » Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:52 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
That's not true. Im MN64 it reads:
MN 64 says the new child has no sakkāyadiṭṭhi. The translation is irrelevant. :roll:
MN 64 wrote:For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them?

Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?
:alien:
That's exactly the point. 'diṭṭhi' means 'view' and that refers to conceptual belief not to perception. You just don't get this difference. That is also why you are miscontruing sotapanna as 'approximate arahant'.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
you are confusing the conceptual notion with the perception. Self-perception is there starting with birth.
Sorry the above is not found anywhere in the suttas. The above is nonsense.
You may reject that but that then entails that you will not get the progress on the path correctly and will not have a reliable measure as to assessment of your own progress. This will foster doubt and uncertainty.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
Obviously also in the experience of a Noble Practitioner since the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desire.
The above is irrelevant to the discussion. The point i made is self-identity is ultimately arising at 9th condition; as was already quoted from many suttas, which you choose to ignore.
There are different level of self-exerience. Non-conceptual perception and conceptual view. And there are even different levels of conceptual view: nominal subtle self which lacks personality and coarse self which even feels like having personalityy and even autobiographical history.

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
The suttas say self-identity is born from craving but you continue to argue, without any sutta support, that craving is born from self-identity.
The suttas remain obscure as to self and exclusively talk about view. For me this hints at the potential realizations through following the Theravada path. This is an aspect I am very interested in: what are the specifics of Dhamma as taught in Theravada.
The view as such is born from craving, yes, but non-conceptual delusive self-perception and craving necessarily condition each other because that non-conceptual delusive self-perception will automatically entail appropriation of aggregates on a non-conceptual level. It is only after the insight which defines a sotapanna has occurred that the transformation of non-conceptual level into full-fledged conceptual view/belief is blocked. But on the non-conceptual level self-percpetion and appropriation of aggregates persists which is why sotapanna still has occurences of sensual desire. These occurences however are not accompanied by the (wrong) views that regularly accompany sensual desire in case of the worldling.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
However the sotapanna has control and is mindful of what is going on.
sotapanna does not have 100% control and is not 100% mindful; particularly when not in formal meditation.
You have to understand 'control' not at face value because there isn't the delusive self involved as in case of the worldling. It is the blocking meantioned above in the wake of insight.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
And this capacity depends on having directly 'seen' the absence of self and all that pertains to the self.
No. The sotapanna seeing clearly the absence of self will not uproot 100% of the defilements.
I have not said that.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am

Please stop repeating the same old Mahayana nonsense that believes the start of the Path to be the end of the Path.
Please stop imputing your fantasies about Mahayana to my words that do not at all say what you are imputing.

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
However since form refers to the objects of the five bodily senses
But it doesn't.
it does. I recall we had a thread here recently where a user quoted exactly that from abhidhamma.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
and nama is "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" there is certainly a connotation of 'subject-object' in 'name-and form'.
But it is not. "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention" is not a connotation of 'subject-object'.
I have not said that. I have said that name, i.e. "Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention", refers to the subject while form refers to the objects of the five bodily senses which is the object side.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
But that is only one of many connotations and certainly not the dominant one.
Irrelevant. The Buddha never taught about subject-object. This is from Hinduism.
C'mon don't miscontrue everything that is not explicitly mentioned in the suttas as 'Hinduism'.

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am
SteRo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am
Obviously you prefer to merge worldly and dhamma views.
For you, dhamma appears to be mind-only solipsism Yogachara. The Buddha did not each this.
Again one of your fantastic imputations. The Buddha did not each this and I do not hold that view either.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:13 am

To believe sexual desire is self-mind-made without any relationship to biological chemistry & hormones seems out of touch with reality. It seems superstitious.
Sexual desire depends on sense objects, senses, aggregates and self-perception. You don't need to have knowledge about "biological chemistry & hormones" for sexual desire to arise.

Please accept my apologies but I now do not want to comment further on your fantastic imputations to my words anymore. You really have a great conditioned creative fantasy which entails that you have lost the capacity to read the words that are written. Actually your reading seems to have a solipsistic character.

SarathW
Posts: 13303
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

Post by SarathW » Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:54 am

There are some Sutta to say, that listening to Buddha some became Sotapanna, some became Sakdhagame, some became Anagama, and some became Arahants. Perhaps some became none.
That means even Buddha's word brings different results.
Perhaps that means people are on different levels of the path.
So practicing the path is the key.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlexBrains92, Ceisiwr, chownah, DooDoot, markandeya and 512 guests