Critique of "jhana among Western converts"

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby polarbear101 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:55 am

On the supposed logical impossibility of literal rebirth:

KevinSolway wrote:
For one thing, a mental continuum (or continuum of consciousness), separate and permanently identifiable from other continuums.

This includes a unique isolated effect of actions - an individual "future life".


Mind you, the things that cannot possibly exist in order to entail the LOGICAL impossibility of rebirth must themselves be logically impossible, such as round squares


Yes, indeed. (noting that I only say that literal rebirth is logically impossible, and not rebirth)

The logical impossibility of literal rebirth is the same as the logical impossibility of self existent things.

This logical impossibility applies to "mental continuums" or "continuums of consciousness" or "karmic streams" or "karmic seeds", or an "atma" or "self" which transmigrates from one life to the next, etc.

Such things are logically impossible.

I'm not going to go into detail here about why self-existent things are impossible. I will assume you know the logical reasons.


I believe that we have been thinking about the mental continuum differently then. It is not self existent and it is indeed the result of quite a few non-mental continuums which give rise to one mental continuum. You cannot say that we cannot isolate specific effects of actions, which are by definition unique. For example, if I tip a glass of water off the table I can isolate one unique and specific effect of that glass of water tipping over, such as the effect that water spilled out of the glass. I can isolate that and speak about it without referring to the fact that the glass also fell off the table and shattered.

First, let us agree that individual mental continuums do in fact exist, i.e. I have a mental continuum that I do not share with you (except indirectly via communication) and you have a mental continuum that you do not share with me. Second, let us concede that these mental continuums arise in dependence on causes and conditions. Third, in order for a mental continuum to, well, continue, these causes and conditions must be ongoing, obviously. Now the question arises: What continuums are the ones responsible for producing this mental continuum? Well, I'm inclined to say having atoms arranged in certain ways is probably a necessary condition but putting that aside one could conceive of mental continuums being caused by continuums not comprised of atoms, say perhaps higg's bosons or something of the sort. Certain quantum particles seemingly pop in and out of existence in space all the time according to some scientists and according to many other scientists/mathematicians we most likely do not live in a purely 4 dimensional world, which means that non-elemental (as in the periodic table) non-mental processes could conceivably converge to sustain/cause a mental continuum while at the same time not being bound to have to travel through space in some linear fashion. Now I say conceivably, because I am referring to logical possibility not physical. Anyway, put simply as I'm rather tired and my brain is beginning to slow down, it is conceivable that a multitude of causal processes are continuously converging to produce a single mental continuum of which the mental events comprising the mental continuum play a part in the conditioning of the next mental event along with other non-mental processes. Basically, a mental continuum is not self-sustaining but is the result of many other processes and thus literal rebirth is logically possible when conceived of in this light. All you need is a series of ongoing conditions to keep individuality.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby suttametta » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:25 pm

KS, You idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with Buddhism.

6. "Ananda, there are four kinds of persons existing in the world. What four?

(i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.[4] On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

...

(i) "Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.[7] But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.[8] And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html


"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Pretty simple. Kamma, which follows a person after death, comes from the mind.

Now, it's clear what Buddhism says. And it's clear what you say isn't Buddhism, but your own brand of teaching. You've admitted that. Now, let's see who decides to follow you. I suspect a handful of idle prattlers and that's what you'll have to show for a life. That's quite empty and meaningless. I hope you decide to drop this game and enter the way to permanent joy, before you're too old to benefit and you die and be reborn in hell for all this misrepresentation of Buddha's wisdom.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:38 pm

suttametta wrote:KS, You idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with Buddhism.


The texts which you quoted speak of causes and results.

That's the same as cause and effect.


And it's clear what you say isn't Buddhism


No. What I say is definitely Buddhism. Rebirth, and all change, definitely works by way of cause and effect.

Intentions are both causes and effects.

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Nyana » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:52 pm

KevinSolway wrote:When a human being loses ALL memory, then they will lose consciousness. Logic, reason, identification, etc, depend on memory.

Firstly, a person suffering from both anterograde amnesia and retrograde amnesia has no short term or long term memory. Secondly, logic, reason, and identification are not synonymous with consciousness.

KevinSolway wrote:
Indeed, it's not impossible. Which is why it's prudent to practice the teachings of . . .

That's like saying that it's not impossible that there are fairies dancing at the bottom of my garden, so I should daily leave them tea and biscuits.

No it's not.

KevinSolway wrote:The reason I choose to live a moral life is so that I won't do harm to others, who represent my future.

The Buddhadhamma is about more than morality. But I suspect that you don't have much sincere interest in the Buddhadhamma.

KevinSolway wrote:For this reason I don't need to believe that consciousness gives rise to postmortem consciousness. It is needless speculation. It is sufficient to understand continuity through cause and effect.

I consider your understanding of causes and conditions to be inadequate and completely unsupported by the Pāli suttas, the Theravāda commentaries, and the Buddhist epistemological tradition of Dignāga & Dharmakīrti, et al.

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby suttametta » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:04 pm

KevinSolway wrote:
suttametta wrote:KS, You idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with Buddhism.


The texts which you quoted speak of causes and results.

That's the same as cause and effect.


You are reaching a conclusion which is over-broad based on an attempt to place common-sense meaning to terms which are terms of art within dharma. If the terms were only common-sense rendering, the Buddha would not need to go on to give the dharma specific definitions.


KevinSolway wrote:
And it's clear what you say isn't Buddhism


No. What I say is definitely Buddhism. Rebirth, and all change, definitely works by way of cause and effect.


This sentence sounds good, except for what we know you have said earlier, which is there is no literal rebirth other than the physical effects of a previous life upon future generations, and that you think one can be reborn in this life and be reborn into several other lives in the next birth. So this explains why you misunderstand the following...

KevinSolway wrote:Intentions are both causes and effects.


No. Intention is only a cause, i.e., the cause of samsara, or the cause of nirvana. The result, phala, is always referring to an experience in the mind, an experience of either pleasure, pain or neutrality, in one's own present body, or in one's own future body that arises after the destruction of the current body when it is dead and cremated.

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby DAWN » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Actualy question is:

- do 5 agregates rebirth apart (body = body, feeling=feeling rebirth, perception=perception rebirt, volitional formations=volitional formations rebirth, consciosness=consciosness ribirth) = rebirth in each moment speculations.

- do 5 agregates rebirth together (body+feeling+perception+volitional formation+consciosness = one same rebirth) = literal rebirth speculations. If they reborn together, what is the element who connect them together? Atta-element?

That is the true question :juggling:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby suttametta » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:26 pm

DAWN wrote:Actualy question is:

- do 5 agregates rebirth apart (body = body, feeling=feeling rebirth, perception=perception rebirt, volitional formations=volitional formations rebirth, consciosness=consciosness ribirth) = rebirth in each moment speculations.

- do 5 agregates rebirth together (body+feeling+perception+volitional formation+consciosness = one same rebirth) = literal rebirth speculations. If they reborn together, what is the element who connect them together? Atta-element?

That is the true question :juggling:


5 aggregates are joined together by 12-links, in this birth and the future birth. When these 12-links are broken by the path, the body is just a residue. At the destruction of the body, then no future birth would occur.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:49 pm

polarbuddha101 wrote:
This logical impossibility applies to "mental continuums" or "continuums of consciousness" or "karmic streams" or "karmic seeds", or an "atma" or "self" which transmigrates from one life to the next, etc.

Such things are logically impossible.

I'm not going to go into detail here about why self-existent things are impossible. I will assume you know the logical reasons.


I believe that we have been thinking about the mental continuum differently then. It is not self existent and it is indeed the result of quite a few non-mental continuums which give rise to one mental continuum.


In the case of those who believe in literal rebirth, there are many signs that are give-aways when it comes to deciding whether their "mental continuums" are a delusion or not. I mentioned some of them in my previous response to you. Any unrealistic thinking is huge sign, such as the unrealistic idea that we can know with certainty how many events of consciousness (if any at all) arise as a result of an event of consciousness.

Such unrealistic thinking is a result of clinging to delusions, and in this case the delusion is the "mental continuum".

The degree of clinging to the idea of this ONE future life, that must only occur AFTER physical death, is extreme. It is like Golem's attachment to his P-R-E-C-I-O-U-S ring. It is definitely a symptom of a clinging to the idea of a permanent identity - regardless of whether that thing changes over time.

Importantly, I'm not implying that anyone who uses the term "mental continuum" is deluded, or clinging to anything, since wise people can use any words they like without having delusions or clinging.


You cannot say that we cannot isolate specific effects of actions, which are by definition unique. For example, if I tip a glass of water off the table I can isolate one unique and specific effect of that glass of water tipping over, such as the effect that water spilled out of the glass. I can isolate that and speak about it without referring to the fact that the glass also fell off the table and shattered.


Yes, you can certainly isolate, mentally, one out of thousands of effects that are happening simultaneously.


First, let us agree that individual mental continuums do in fact exist, i.e. I have a mental continuum that I do not share with you


Mentally, we can divide the world up however we choose.

Each person can have several different minds, or mental continuums. For example, a person can have one mind to get married, and another mind to remain single. They can have one mind that wants to lie, and another that wants to tell the truth.

It doesn't really matter how we divide the world up. Whatever works is good. The problem is when people project more onto these divisions than is really there, and seek permanence where there is none, and cling to their concepts.


In order for a mental continuum to, well, continue, these causes and conditions must be ongoing, obviously.


Yes, a mental continuum continues so long as causes and conditions determine that it does. And then it no longer will.


Now the question arises: What continuums are the ones responsible for producing this mental continuum?


We can only guess.


. . . it is conceivable that a multitude of causal processes are continuously converging to produce a single mental continuum of which the mental events comprising the mental continuum play a part in the conditioning of the next mental event


Yes, provided that there is a next mental event. In the case that causes and conditions determine that the mental continuum comes to an end, then it will come to an end, and there won't be a next mental event.

Basically, a mental continuum is not self-sustaining but is the result of many other processes and thus literal rebirth is logically possible when conceived of in this light. All you need is a series of ongoing conditions to keep individuality.


In a sense, all different interpretations of rebirth are "literal", since different people understand different things by the words.

Imagine a mental event that spawns a thousand other mental events (or "future lives") all at the same time. That is a mental continuum. And let's say that shortly after that the whole mental continuum comes to an end - due to causes and conditions. This would be a valid kind of "literal rebirth" concept, so long as clinging or delusion does not arise at any moment with regard to it.

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby DAWN » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:55 pm

suttametta wrote:
DAWN wrote:Actualy question is:

- do 5 agregates rebirth apart (body = body, feeling=feeling rebirth, perception=perception rebirt, volitional formations=volitional formations rebirth, consciosness=consciosness ribirth) = rebirth in each moment speculations.

- do 5 agregates rebirth together (body+feeling+perception+volitional formation+consciosness = one same rebirth) = literal rebirth speculations. If they reborn together, what is the element who connect them together? Atta-element?

That is the true question :juggling:


5 aggregates are joined together by 12-links, in this birth and the future birth. When these 12-links are broken by the path, the body is just a residue. At the destruction of the body, then no future birth would occur.


This is, perharps, the answer on this debate. :smile:

Dear Suttametta, can you please tall us what are this 12 links? Or if there is any sutta about? :anjali:

Thanks you !
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:09 pm

polarbuddha101 wrote:Mental death need not logically occur with physical death


For that to be true then mind and body would need to be independent of each other.

That's not possible, but that discussion can wait for another day.


the teacup argument only applies to the body since we know that it does indeed 'break' and then decompose.


The teacup appears to break, and then we say "it broke".

Likewise, when a person appears to have no consciousness (consciousness is "broke", possibly because no oxygen is being supplied to the brain, because of a heart attack) then we say that the person is dead.

It's the same thing.


The transference of memory and consciousness to machines while neat is overblown.


Nevertheless, it may be possible one day.

That which is copied across may not be a perfect copy, but we are not a perfect copy from moment to moment anyway, so it doesn't really matter.


It could mean a billion consciousnesses, it could also mean one and the latter seems, for obvious reasons, much more likely than the former.


Not in my experience. I have always experienced that one cause has many simultaneous effects.

In any case, I'm not interested in "probabilities", since I am a philosopher and a Buddhist.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:30 pm

suttametta wrote:
KevinSolway wrote:The texts which you quoted speak of causes and results.

That's the same as cause and effect.


You are reaching a conclusion which is over-broad


It's not "over broad", it's simply how I use the term "cause and effect".

The kamma of the 12 links is a particular expression of cause and effect, and it is not the whole of cause and effect.


KevinSolway wrote:
No. What I say is definitely Buddhism. Rebirth, and all change, definitely works by way of cause and effect.


This sentence sounds good, except for what we know you have said earlier, which is there is no literal rebirth other than the physical effects of a previous life upon future generations


No, I've never said that.

I have said that there is rebirth, but that there is no literal rebirth.

Rebirth consists of the re-arising of the false concept of "I". "Birth", in Dhamma language, is the arising of false concept of "I", and has nothing to do with physical birth.

The process of rebirth is powered by cause and effect.

I have never said that rebirth only happens by "physical effects of a previous life upon future generations".

Rather, I have said that it happens by all the manner of means by which the false concept of an "I" is produced.


[...] and that you think one can be reborn in this life and be reborn into several other lives in the next birth.


The false concept of "I" *("birth") can arise many times during a single day.


KevinSolway wrote:Intentions are both causes and effects.


No. Intention is only a cause


Intentions are dependently arising - which is to say that they arise dependent on causes. Since intentions are caused, it follows that intentions are effects of causes.

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby beeblebrox » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:24 pm

DAWN wrote:Dear Suttametta, can you please tall us what are this 12 links? Or if there is any sutta about? :anjali:

Thanks you !


Hi Dawn, with the 12 links they mean paticcasamuppada, or the dependent origination. It's a frequent teaching given by the Buddha.

The 12 links are: ignorance, formations, consciousness, nama-rupa, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and then aging and death.

:anjali:

User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:50 pm

KevinSolway wrote:When I read the bible I interpret the word "God" to mean "the All" - all that exists ("The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end"). So my interpretation is very different to that of a fundamentalist Christian. It is not at all obvious that the fundamentalist's interpretation is the correct one.

I'm sorry, but I'm done here. This statement alone shows that you are not particularly interested in any religious text or tradition except as a means to justify an already existent philosophy that you have created; one that, by the way, seems to be little more than a bland hodge-podge of New Age noncommittalism and neutered, self-righteous secularism.

Your self-serving epistemological anarchism is so divorced from any historical or scholarly base that your claims cannot possibly be considered to have their genesis in anything but an almost solipsistic reliance on your own personal opinions, regardless of whether or not those opinions have anything to do with Buddhism itself. Only an intense amount of self-absorption, stubborn condescension, and smug delusion - three qualities that have been more than evident in your discourses here from the beginning - could be responsible for such an approach to the Buddhadhamma. It is clear that debate with you is a Sisyphean burden that, due to your habit of subjugating reason and scholarship to self-congratulatory soapboxing, cannot bear much fruit except exhaustion.

One last note: Buddhadasa never rejected postmortem "literal" rebirth, but merely believed in a focus on the moment-to-moment rebirth scheme as a way of correcting serious wrong view amongst the Thai laity. Please stop trying to co-opt the venerable man's teachings for your own ends.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:04 pm

LonesomeYogurt,

So you're saying that you alone know the one true interpretation of all the religious texts in the world?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe you.


Your self-serving epistemological anarchism is so divorced from any historical or scholarly base that your claims cannot possibly be considered to have their genesis in anything but an almost solipsistic reliance on your own personal opinions


So you would also say that about Buddhadasa, would you? (since his interpretation of rebirth is the same as mine)


Buddhadasa never rejected postmortem "literal" rebirth


To quote Buddhadasa:

A person is born physically only once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and enters the coffin. Physical birth happens to each of us only once.


What part of "Physical birth happens to each of us only once" don't you understand?

Buddhadasa continues:

In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again.


In the Buddha's description of conditioned arising, he wasn't talking about physical birth. He was talking about the birth of attachment to the ideas of "me" and "mine", "myself" and "my own."


So you are terribly mistaken.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:07 pm

LonesomeYogurt wrote:. . . Your self-serving epistemological anarchism is so divorced from any historical or scholarly base that your claims cannot possibly be considered to have their genesis in anything but an almost solipsistic reliance on your own personal opinions, regardless of whether or not those opinions have anything to do with Buddhism itself. Only an intense amount of self-absorption, stubborn condescension, and smug delusion - three qualities that have been more than evident in your discourses here from the beginning - could be responsible for such an approach to the Buddhadhamma. It is clear that debate with you is a Sisyphean burden that, due to your habit of subjugating reason and scholarship to self-congratulatory soapboxing, cannot bear much fruit except exhaustion. . . .
Solway has a very long history of this sort of thing across the Net. There is no real substance to his point of view. He has his arguing points, which he keeps repeating no matter what is said in response to them. It is the same stuff over and over, but it is obvious that he cannot meaningfully engage in a real debate. He does not have the depth of knowledge of the Buddha's teachings for that, nor does it seem that he is actually interested in a genuine exchange od ideas. He is simply here solely for the brawling that he starts. The value in what has happened above is that Solway has exposed himself for what he is
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:22 pm

KevinSolway wrote:LonesomeYogurt,

So you're saying that you alone know the one true interpretation of all the religious texts in the world?
Neat little rhetorical trick, but that is not what he said, but that has never stopped you. Just turn around any criticism directed at you and go on the attack rather than actually dealing with the criticism.

Your self-serving epistemological anarchism is so divorced from any historical or scholarly base that your claims cannot possibly be considered to have their genesis in anything but an almost solipsistic reliance on your own personal opinions


So you would also say that about Buddhadasa, would you? (since his interpretation of rebirth is the same as mine)
Assuming that your interpretation is the same as Buddhadasa, in light of the teachings of the suttas, I would have no problem saying that Buddhadasa is wrong. And you have shown yourself here to be repeatedly wrong. And you are still unable to account for the causal continuity of the individual. And, heavens to besty, you are still clinging to the tea cup analogy. Does not matter what anyone says, you have your arguing points, and you just keep repeating them no matter how handily they are shown to be wrong. It is certainly not Buddha-Dhamma that is dripping from your keyboard; rather, it is the same old self-serving trollish Kevinism.

So, the real question is: Why are you here?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5974
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby daverupa » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:23 pm

tiltbillings wrote:exposed himself for what he is


Image
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: ththe Solway "debate"

Postby KevinSolway » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:23 pm

tiltbillings wrote:He is simply here solely for the brawling that he starts.


All you do is express your own personal, uninformed opinions, and never present a rational argument.

You have no idea what my motives are.

Try making a rational argument.


Forum troll


I wondered how long it would be before you started with the dehumanizing insults.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:26 pm

KevinSolway wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:He is simply here solely for the brawling that he starts.


All you do is express your own personal, uninformed opinions, and never present a rational argument.

You have no idea what my motives are.

Try making a rational argument.
You don't make rational arguments, nor do you actually engage with those that are made. You simply deny what the other person has said and you repeat your arguing points.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:41 pm

All rebirth debate with Solway will happen here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12


Return to “Samatha Bhāvana”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine