It is absolutely of no use on this forum.mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps you'd like to explain your interpretation of what that passage is telling us, rather than making vague assertions about how wrong everyone else is.
It is just like red herring or silence is the motto of the "influent" people on this forum.
Why is that?
Why bother to give our point of view, if it is to be buttered up with the same dim commonplaces, to the point where it is not edible anymore? Why?
So my assertions are not that "vague".
My assertions are that (instead of going for "great lay teachers", like in the last post), why not going for the original, in its possibly most genuine form. Which mean that we would stick to the doctrine as it is, for instance, in the doctrinal part of the Saṃyutta Nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama texts. Making it simpler, might making it clearer, I suppose.
I will give an example of "silence", as mentioned above; now that you have served us with banality.
This example has to do with another subject on this forum; but it shows how some assertions are not that "vague", as you put it. It shows that when we get into the nitty gritty, silence is a form of avoidance; for whatever reason?.
Plus, the subject at stake in this other thread, also answers a tiny bit of what we are concerned in this thread.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 43#p397843
There was an attempt in this post to circumscribe the dhatu to some specific sphere, and to relate the other dhatus to it. An attempt to show the global functioning of the system.
As we can see, this was not what the commentaries did. As usual, they mixed up everything into a muddled soup; for whatever reason they had.
Saying that "the sensuality element (kāmadhātu) is sensual thought, all sense-sphere phenomena in general, and in particular everything unwholesome" is another commonplace applesauce from the commentators, that brings nothing to the understanding.
What was your point of view on that:
And I am afraid to say that, if we had had an answer to the question from you, it would have been some commonplace as usual.
So, instead of getting into wispy details, get into the specifics. Instead of the generals, get into the particulars.
As far as answering you quoted remark, I hope my direct tone has not bothered you.
As far as specifically answering the problem of this passage you have been quoted, it would be worthless to answer it straightly, before understanding the specifics that surrounds it. And they are many.
The point again is not to answer a question by generalities, but by specifics; one at a time. So the whole comes to understanding.
No generalities - just specifics. And where to get them?: in the screened out doctrinal parts of the texts.
Instead of going for people, whose intentions are not (or will never be) that clear; why don't you just stick to what Buddha said, trying to sieve the parallels.murphythecat8 wrote:......
I am pretty sure you would be better of with that.
And before you "practice", get the theory right. You don't need monks anymore. You have the internet to provide you with the early texts. Then join the true Sangha, and practice.