the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:27 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:18 am
SteRo


Your extremist view is your rejection of the conventional using your 'magic formula' "born from ...". The seeing "past signs, “things” and concepts" is the seeing of ignorance.
Very close. It’s seeing how they are constructed from ignorance, lust and aversion.
Maybe you misunderstood. In "the seeing of ignorance" ignorance is not used as object seen but as agent that sees.

Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

SteRo
Posts: 2368
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:27 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:18 am
SteRo





Very close. It’s seeing how they are constructed from ignorance, lust and aversion.
Maybe you misunderstood. In "the seeing of ignorance" ignorance is not used as object seen but as agent that sees.

Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
There is nothing to be seen "past signs, things ("" omitted because things have no other status than signs or concepts) and concepts". Therefore if someone asserts seeing "past signs, things and concepts" it is ignorance that sees such a seeing.
If lust would be a maker of signs then how can there be lust without the sign of lust? The same applies to aversion and ignorance.
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".
To the spheres of experience ("users") it may concern: When applying words no truth or reality is claimed. Language only knows the extremes of (+)-affirming experience ("is", "has", "does", etc.) and (-)-negating experience ("isn't", "hasn't", "doesn't", etc.) but it does not know the 'zero'-(0)-experience of non-apprehension. Therefore every linguistic expression might erroneously appear as claim though it is only a preliminary suggestion.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:56 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:27 am


Maybe you misunderstood. In "the seeing of ignorance" ignorance is not used as object seen but as agent that sees.

Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
There is nothing to be seen "past signs, things ("" omitted because things have no other status than signs or concepts) and concepts". Therefore if someone asserts seeing "past signs, things and concepts" it is ignorance that sees such a seeing.
If lust would be a maker of signs then how can there be lust without the sign of lust? The same applies to aversion and ignorance.
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".

When one gains knowledge of neutral feelings the underlying tendency to ignorance in relation to it is abandoned. The underlying tendency to lust is abandoned. The underlying tendency to aversion is abandoned. With ignorance, lust and aversion abandoned feeling is not delighted in. Feeling not being delighted in there is the cessation of perception, the cessation of contact, the cessation of volitional formations (intention and attention). There being that cessation the six sense bases come to cessation. The world comes to cessation. Signs come to cessation. Words, language, concepts and views come to cessation. Concepts have been seen through and transcended. There is nothing more to be done
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

SteRo
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".
Signs are not the basis for lust, aversion and ignorance. Lust, aversion and ignorance are the basis for signs.


“Lust is a maker of signs. Aversion is a maker of signs. Delusion is a maker of signs.” MN 43
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8178
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:42 am
Sure, e.g. comprehended as empty, void, and non-substantial
But not as "non-aggregates".
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:42 am
Ceisiwr is holding extremist views...
:twothumbsup:
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:11 am, edited 2 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

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:56 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:27 am


Maybe you misunderstood. In "the seeing of ignorance" ignorance is not used as object seen but as agent that sees.

Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
There is nothing to be seen "past signs, things ("" omitted because things have no other status than signs or concepts) and concepts". Therefore if someone asserts seeing "past signs, things and concepts" it is ignorance that sees such a seeing.
If lust would be a maker of signs then how can there be lust without the sign of lust? The same applies to aversion and ignorance.
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".

You are still stuck in thinking in terms of existence and non-existence, which is why you think signs refer to something “out there” from which there is lust, aversion and ignorance. You still think there is the world as a real and existing “thing” instead of seeing that the world is a “thing” but that thing is merely ignorance, lust and aversion. Ignorance, lust and aversion make the world.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8178
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:18 am
Very close. It’s seeing how they are constructed from ignorance, lust and aversion.
So far away. SN 22.48 refers to two types of five aggregates. Only the 2nd type of five aggregates affected by attachment are constructed from ignorance, lust and aversion; as follows:
"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

MN 149.


Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am
They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
Signs (nimitta) do not appear to refer to aggregates. :roll:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:01 am
Feeling not being delighted in there is the cessation of perception, the cessation of contact, the cessation of volitional formations (intention and attention). There being that cessation the six sense bases come to cessation. The world comes to cessation. Signs come to cessation. Words, language, concepts and views come to cessation. Concepts have been seen through and transcended. There is nothing more to be done
:roll: Arahants have contact, feeling & perception.
Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element

Iti 44
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:19 am, edited 2 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: 2368
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:01 am
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:56 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am



Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
There is nothing to be seen "past signs, things ("" omitted because things have no other status than signs or concepts) and concepts". Therefore if someone asserts seeing "past signs, things and concepts" it is ignorance that sees such a seeing.
If lust would be a maker of signs then how can there be lust without the sign of lust? The same applies to aversion and ignorance.
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".

When one gains knowledge of neutral feelings the underlying tendency to ignorance in relation to it is abandoned. The underlying tendency to lust is abandoned. The underlying tendency to aversion is abandoned. With ignorance, lust and aversion abandoned feeling is not delighted in. Feeling not being delighted in there is the cessation of perception, the cessation of contact, the cessation of volitional formations (intention and attention). There being that cessation the six sense bases come to cessation. The world comes to cessation. Signs come to cessation. Words, language, concepts and views come to cessation. Concepts have been seen through and transcended. There is nothing more to be done
Please abandon whatver you like to abandon in whatever fabricated conditional context. That's not relevant for me.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:03 am
SteRo
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".
Signs are not the basis for lust, aversion and ignorance. Lust, aversion and ignorance are the basis for signs.


“Lust is a maker of signs. Aversion is a maker of signs. Delusion is a maker of signs.” MN 43
You don't understand. To see lust you first have to take up a sign of lust.

What you quote is from an instruction to attain the signless awareness release which is mentally fashioned. It is said to cause dispassion with signs to enable temporary awareness release.

But in terms of reality it is as I said "one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs"". Nothing can be affirmed without being based on first taking up its signs.
To the spheres of experience ("users") it may concern: When applying words no truth or reality is claimed. Language only knows the extremes of (+)-affirming experience ("is", "has", "does", etc.) and (-)-negating experience ("isn't", "hasn't", "doesn't", etc.) but it does not know the 'zero'-(0)-experience of non-apprehension. Therefore every linguistic expression might erroneously appear as claim though it is only a preliminary suggestion.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

This:

“ You don't understand. To see lust you first have to take up a sign of lust.”

Is false. You do not understand nama-rupa, hence the vortex is still spinning.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Feeling and lust precedes perception.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:39 am
Aloka wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:27 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:55 am
SteRo




Useful concepts but don’t get lost in them.

Lol! the irony of it all!


.

What’s the irony?

Look within for the answer.


.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8178
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:21 am
Feeling and lust precedes perception.
:roll:
What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18
Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them.

MN 43
"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...

"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...

"Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...

"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...

DN 22
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:28 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: 2368
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:08 am
SteRo wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:56 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 am



Ignorance of feelings, ignorance of neutral feelings in particular. Ignorance of nama-rupa and viññāṇa. They are refer to the same state of not-understanding how lust is a maker of signs, aversion is a maker of signs, ignorance is a maker of signs.
There is nothing to be seen "past signs, things ("" omitted because things have no other status than signs or concepts) and concepts". Therefore if someone asserts seeing "past signs, things and concepts" it is ignorance that sees such a seeing.
If lust would be a maker of signs then how can there be lust without the sign of lust? The same applies to aversion and ignorance.
So one might see lust, aversion and ignorance but only based on signs not "past signs".

You are still stuck in thinking in terms of existence and non-existence,
Not at all. Neither existence nor non-existence apply.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:08 am
which is why you think signs refer to something “out there” from which there is lust, aversion and ignorance.
There is only “out there” if the sign of “out there” is apprehended. the same applies to lust, aversion and ignorance.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:08 am
You still think there is the world as a real and existing “thing” instead of seeing that the world is a “thing” but that thing is merely ignorance, lust and aversion. Ignorance, lust and aversion make the world.
Again there is only the world if the sign of the world is apprehended. the same applies to lust, aversion and ignorance.


Having said that that does not at all negate “out there”, lust, aversion and ignorance or the world. Why? Because “out there”, lust, aversion and ignorance or the world are valid conventions.
To the spheres of experience ("users") it may concern: When applying words no truth or reality is claimed. Language only knows the extremes of (+)-affirming experience ("is", "has", "does", etc.) and (-)-negating experience ("isn't", "hasn't", "doesn't", etc.) but it does not know the 'zero'-(0)-experience of non-apprehension. Therefore every linguistic expression might erroneously appear as claim though it is only a preliminary suggestion.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8178
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:19 am
This:

“ You don't understand. To see lust you first have to take up a sign of lust.”

Is false. You do not understand nama-rupa, hence the vortex is still spinning.
"Signs" or "nimitta" are also external.
Turn away from the feature of things
Nimittaṃ parivajjehi,

that’s attractive, provoking lust.
subhaṃ rāgūpasaṃhitaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/sn8.4/en/sujato
‘Please, monks, live with sense doors guarded.

‘etha tumhe, bhikkhave, indriyesu guttadvārā viharatha.

When you see a sight with your eyes, don’t get caught up in the features and details.

Cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā mā nimittaggāhino ahuvattha, mānubyañjanaggāhino.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.127/en/sujato
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:35 am, edited 1 time 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

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

:focus:
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

Post Reply