Soul theories and the Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
ToVincent
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:02 pm

ancientbuddhism wrote:
ToVincent wrote:Having a cognition beyond the "world" - beyond the physical body - beyond contact with saḷāyatana...
…were not assertions of the Tathāgata or of any credible authority on the Dhamma or Buddhism.
I repeat what I already said in:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ed#p401856
But viññāṇa anidassana per se, is outside the range of the physical body.
That is what you can't understand.
Viññāṇa anidassana (that Bodhi also call rightly "infinite consciousness" (in his translation referenced below,) because it is quite of the same nature,) is experienced out of the "all", and cannot be claimed to be with respect to the "all", says MN 49.

The MN 49 pericope is given here with three different translations:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ro#p401701

You know what the "all" means in Buddhism, do you?
The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. SN 35.23
So if I read well, the body is in the "all" - right?
And viññāṇa anidassana is experienced out of the "all" - Right?
In other words, viññāṇa anidassana is experienced out of the physical body.

So when I say that there is a cognition beyond the "world" (aka saḷāyatana, of which the "all" is a part,) - beyond the physical body - beyond contact with saḷāyatana...
Why do you answer:
…were not assertions of the Tathāgata or of any credible authority on the Dhamma or Buddhism?

Who speaks in MN 49 ?!?! - Me ?

This is ludicrous.

------

On the other hand, you have not yet answered my question here:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... na#p401701
What kind of scholarly references might make you think that SN 12.11 or 12.15 for instance; or most of SN 12 for that matter, are "late Nikayas"? What kind of references might make you think that the content of these suttas were "padded out" from the Parayana or Aṭṭhaka vaggas?

In other words, what reasons do you have to occult MN 49; and wipe out paṭiccasamuppāda, out of Early Buddhism?
What are your profound scholarly reasons?
Tell me.

I think that you are making up what EBT (early Buddhist Texts) are all about; and purge the Suttas, to fit your delusional materialistic bias. Period.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:09 pm

ToVincent wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
ToVincent wrote:Having a cognition beyond the "world" - beyond the physical body - beyond contact with saḷāyatana...
…were not assertions of the Tathāgata or of any credible authority on the Dhamma or Buddhism.
I repeat what I already said in:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ed#p401856
But viññāṇa anidassana per se, is outside the range of the physical body.
That is what you can't understand.
Viññāṇa anidassana (that Bodhi also call rightly "infinite consciousness" (in his translation referenced below,) because it is quite of the same nature,) is experienced out of the "all", and cannot be claimed to be with respect to the "all", says MN 49.

The MN 49 pericope is given here with three different translations:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ro#p401701

You know what the "all" means in Buddhism, do you?
The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. SN 35.23
So if I read well, the body is in the "all" - right?
And viññāṇa anidassana is experienced out of the "all" - Right?
In other words, viññāṇa anidassana is experienced out of the physical body.

So when I say that there is a cognition beyond the "world" (aka saḷāyatana, of which the "all" is a part,) - beyond the physical body - beyond contact with saḷāyatana...
Why do you answer:
…were not assertions of the Tathāgata or of any credible authority on the Dhamma or Buddhism?

Who speaks in MN 49 ?!?! - Me ?

This is ludicrous.

------

On the other hand, you have not yet answered my question here:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... na#p401701
What kind of scholarly references might make you think that SN 12.11 or 12.15 for instance; or most of SN 12 for that matter, are "late Nikayas"? What kind of references might make you think that the content of these suttas were "padded out" from the Parayana or Aṭṭhaka vaggas?

In other words, what reasons do you have to occult MN 49; and wipe out paṭiccasamuppāda, out of Early Buddhism?
What are your profound scholarly reasons?
Tell me.

I think that you are making up what EBT (early Buddhist Texts) are all about; and purge the Suttas, to fit your delusional materialistic bias. Period.
The problem here isn't a problem of legitimate of illegitimate interpretation of the Buddhavacana. The problem is with suttas being discarded and claimed to be inauthentic at a hat drop, IMO.
如無為,如是難見、不動、不屈、不死、無漏、覆蔭、洲渚、濟渡、依止、擁護、不流轉、離熾焰、離燒然、流通、清涼、微妙、安隱、無病、無所有、涅槃。
Like this is the uncreated, like this is that which is difficult to realize, with no moving, no bending, no dying. Utterly lacking secretions and smothered in the dark, it is the island shore. Where there is ferrying, it is the crossing. It is dependency's ceasing, it is the end of circulating transmissions. It is the exhaustion of the flame, it is the ending of the burning. Flowing openly, pure and cool, with secret subtlety, and calm occultation, lacking ailment, lacking owning, nirvāṇa.
Asaṁskṛtadharmasūtra, Sermon on the Uncreated Phenomenon, T99.224b7, Saṁyuktāgama 890

Dinsdale
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:44 pm

ToVincent wrote:Viññāṇa anidassana (that Bodhi also call rightly "infinite consciousness" (in his translation referenced below,) because it is quite of the same nature,) is experienced out of the "all", and cannot be claimed to be with respect to the "all", says MN 49.[/b][/size]
Vinnana anidassana is tricky.

Thanissaro has it as "consciousness without surface", or "consciousness without feature", and regards it as non-temporal.
Walshe renders it as "signless consciousness" or "invisible consciousness".
Nanananda describes it as the "non-manifestive consciousness" of the Arahant.
Horner renders it as the "discriminative consciousness which cannot be characterised".
Bodhi describes it as the Arahants consciousness during the meditative experience of Nibbana.

So it seems to be a type of consciousness associated with the experience of Nibbana. I don't see what this has to do with soul claims though.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: what do no-selfers think the aggregates are?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:46 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
binocular wrote:No, you're misrepresenting him. He's just allowing for the possibility of the existence of something, on the grounds that experiential knowledge is limited. Allowing for the possibility that something exists is not the same as saying it exists.
You haven't been reading his posts then, he is emphatically stating that there is a self outside of the aggregates, that it exits, he shows no interest in taking an agnostic view on the topic and practicing the teachings as taught.
Indeed, although I still haven't heard a clear explanation of where this self is supposed to he hiding, given that it is not "in" the aggregates or Nibbana.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ancientbuddhism » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:53 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:The problem here isn't a problem of legitimate of illegitimate interpretation of the Buddhavacana. The problem is with suttas being discarded and claimed to be inauthentic at a hat drop, IMO.
A left-handed reference to me I suppose. Can you show anywhere an example where a sutta has been claimed by me as inauthentic?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:58 pm

ancientbuddhism wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:The problem here isn't a problem of legitimate of illegitimate interpretation of the Buddhavacana. The problem is with suttas being discarded and claimed to be inauthentic at a hat drop, IMO.
A left-handed reference to me I suppose. Can you show anywhere an example where a sutta has been claimed by me as inauthentic?
Its a left-handed reference to David Brainerd. We disagree, I guess, on the issue of Ven Thanissaro's dhamma-dispensation, and on the issue of if the Buddha argues, metaphysically and ontologically, if there is a self or not, but that is a minor issue compared to the profoundly serious issue of the mutilation the Pali Canon endures under the hand of poorly-informed pseudo-Protestant reformers.
如無為,如是難見、不動、不屈、不死、無漏、覆蔭、洲渚、濟渡、依止、擁護、不流轉、離熾焰、離燒然、流通、清涼、微妙、安隱、無病、無所有、涅槃。
Like this is the uncreated, like this is that which is difficult to realize, with no moving, no bending, no dying. Utterly lacking secretions and smothered in the dark, it is the island shore. Where there is ferrying, it is the crossing. It is dependency's ceasing, it is the end of circulating transmissions. It is the exhaustion of the flame, it is the ending of the burning. Flowing openly, pure and cool, with secret subtlety, and calm occultation, lacking ailment, lacking owning, nirvāṇa.
Asaṁskṛtadharmasūtra, Sermon on the Uncreated Phenomenon, T99.224b7, Saṁyuktāgama 890

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:19 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:The problem here isn't a problem of legitimate of illegitimate interpretation of the Buddhavacana. The problem is with suttas being discarded and claimed to be inauthentic at a hat drop, IMO.
A left-handed reference to me I suppose. Can you show anywhere an example where a sutta has been claimed by me as inauthentic?
Its a left-handed reference to David Brainerd. We disagree, I guess, on the issue of Ven Thanissaro's dhamma-dispensation, and on the issue of if the Buddha argues, metaphysically and ontologically, if there is a self or not, but that is a minor issue compared to the profoundly serious issue of the mutilation the Pali Canon endures under the hand of poorly-informed pseudo-Protestant reformers.
Please explain how you deal with the issue of these suttas being certain that nibbana is deathless state and supreme security but those suttas being agnostic about whether anyone continues or ceases in nibbana. I already know how you deal with it: the same as me but minus the honesty. You reject one side of the contradiction, in your case the side of the suttas that say nibbana is deathless state and supreme security, but you lack the honesty to admit you rejected some suttas. The difference between my approach and yours is not merely that I reject the other side of the contradiction (the agnostic suttas), but that I admit this is what I've done.

And speaking of Protestantism, they pull the same thing. Baptists silently reject Acts 2:38 and 1st Peter 3:21 or any other passage saying baptism is necessary, and Restoration movement Church of Christ guys silently reject any passage that says justification by faith and not by works (in order to make room for baptism). Each pretends the canon only teaches their position, when in fact it contradicts itself and teaches both. I think honesty matters in these matters, so when I was a Christian I admitted point blank what passages I rejected, much to the chagrin of both groups, even the one that technically agreed with me but had to be dishonest to save face as being inerrantists.
Last edited by davidbrainerd on Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

ToVincent
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Spiny Norman wrote: Vinnana anidassana is tricky.
In this case, it doesn't seem so tricky at all.

Budha meant:
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, not claiming being with respect to all (good translation by Bodhi,), is not experienced as (through) the allness of the "all" (good translations by Thanissaro and Piya tan).
as in:
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, taṃ pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṃ, āpassa āpattena ananubhūtaṃ, tejassa ..., sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṃ.

So no "physical body" is involved here. Not trick there.

Anyway, even the rapture in SN 54.13 is not sāmisa (fleshly, carnal); but nirāmisa (spiritual - not of the flesh).
In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
Āraddhavīriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisā. Yasmiṃ samaye, ānanda, bhikkhuno āraddhavīriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisāpītisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti, pītisambojjhaṅgaṃ tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhu bhāveti, pītisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchati.
So why so many materialists, (so called buddhists,) are having problems, with things that could be experienced out of the physical body? And why do they have to make of that, a special "super eternal Being/Sat" of some sort?

It is just a cognitive experience, that get you rid of the birth/death process; because it is not experienced through the body anymore. It is an experience, where there is no "contact" with the spheres of senses anymore.
Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are [the whatever 60+ views are], proclaim on XX grounds the xxxxxxxxxxxxx — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact—such a case is impossible.
---
all these recluses and brahmins experience these feelings only by repeated contacts through the six bases of contact.
---
When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and passing away of the six bases of contact, their satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, then he understands what transcends all these views.
DN1
Who said that this (transcendence,) had to be eternal; or that this should be some kind of Self (Sat/Atman or Whatever), with which you would finally merge, or whatever?

Note: I don't know if viññāṇa anidassana is atemporal or not, as Thanissaro views it - (although the space-time pair would say so. No more space = no more time). I don't really care much about these speculations. But I know one thing, from what Buddha said; and that is that viññāṇa anidassana, (and more particularly viññāṇañcāyatana (infinite consciousness*) that concerns us,) is experienced¨out of the physical body.

* Viññāṇa añcāyatana (infinite consciousness) seems to be of the same nature than viññāṇa anidassana. The difference being that viññāṇa anidassana does not experience the "all", while viññāṇa añcāyatana does experience the "all" (through sense-consciousness;) but abandon the "all".

Edited: Added end note.
Last edited by ToVincent on Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:03 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:Please explain how you deal with the issue of these suttas being certain that nibbana is deathless state and supreme security but those suttas being agnostic about whether anyone continues or ceases in nibbana.
Nibbana is called Amata (the deathless) not because you have eternal life but simply because rebirth ceases then death ceases.

There is no need to posit a permanent unchanging essense in order to make sense of that, Buddhism doesn't promise the end of anicca as anicca is just a fact of life therefore there is no possibility of a permanent unchanging essense in the Buddhas model.

I think the Buddha was deliberately vague on the detail on what happens after death because people would misunderstand and cling to their own interpretations, just as you are doing, and this would distract us from the path of practice here and now.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:10 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:Please explain how you deal with the issue of these suttas being certain that nibbana is deathless state and supreme security but those suttas being agnostic about whether anyone continues or ceases in nibbana.
Nibbana is called Amata (the deathless) not because you have eternal life but simply because rebirth ceases then death ceases.

There is no need to posit a permanent unchanging essense in order to make sense of that, Buddhism doesn't promise the end of anicca as anicca is just a fact of life therefore there is no possibility of a permanent unchanging essense in the Buddhas model.

I think the Buddha was deliberately vague on the detail on what happens after death because people would misunderstand and cling to their own interpretations, just as you are doing, and this would distract us from the path of practice here and now.
Nobody said anything about unchanging. And no your interpretation is just plain stupid. Deathless means eternal life. Birthless would mean what you want. Yes we all know rebirth ceases in nibbana but that does not make deathless mean other than what it obviously means. And remember its not just deathless but deathless SUPREME SECURITY. Precious snowflakes of nihilist Buddhism need a safe space from the real suttas and the real Buddha because the concept of deathless supreme security triggers them.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:27 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:Please explain how you deal with the issue of these suttas being certain that nibbana is deathless state and supreme security but those suttas being agnostic about whether anyone continues or ceases in nibbana.
Nibbana is called Amata (the deathless) not because you have eternal life but simply because rebirth ceases then death ceases.

There is no need to posit a permanent unchanging essense in order to make sense of that, Buddhism doesn't promise the end of anicca as anicca is just a fact of life therefore there is no possibility of a permanent unchanging essense in the Buddhas model.

I think the Buddha was deliberately vague on the detail on what happens after death because people would misunderstand and cling to their own interpretations, just as you are doing, and this would distract us from the path of practice here and now.
This strikes me as an answer that is in line with the nikayas and the individual teachings of various monks I have heard lecture online, who come from the Theravada tradition, which, I don't think is "stupid", as much as other posters here might think it is.
如無為,如是難見、不動、不屈、不死、無漏、覆蔭、洲渚、濟渡、依止、擁護、不流轉、離熾焰、離燒然、流通、清涼、微妙、安隱、無病、無所有、涅槃。
Like this is the uncreated, like this is that which is difficult to realize, with no moving, no bending, no dying. Utterly lacking secretions and smothered in the dark, it is the island shore. Where there is ferrying, it is the crossing. It is dependency's ceasing, it is the end of circulating transmissions. It is the exhaustion of the flame, it is the ending of the burning. Flowing openly, pure and cool, with secret subtlety, and calm occultation, lacking ailment, lacking owning, nirvāṇa.
Asaṁskṛtadharmasūtra, Sermon on the Uncreated Phenomenon, T99.224b7, Saṁyuktāgama 890

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:39 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:Nobody said anything about unchanging.
The definition of atta/atman is a permanent unchanging essense, that's the definition of self the Buddha is interested in deconstructing, if you haven't been arguing the case for a permanent unchanging essense over the past few month then you've wasted a lot of bandwidth. A view of self as something changing and conditioned is quite compatible with Buddhism I think, just not central to the practice or healthy to cling to.
davidbrainerd wrote:And no your interpretation is just plain stupid. Deathless means eternal life. Birthless would mean what you want.
Your response is not constructive. Deathless is an english word, always check the original pali, I think it's also correct to say Birthless as one of the other adjectives for Nibbana is Unborn.

A more literal translation would be "undead", interestingly enough; the sense should be "undying", i.e. that which, because it is not involved with arising, is also not involved with ceasing. – yuttadhammo
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: what do no-selfers think the aggregates are?

Post by Javi » Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:52 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:
No_Mind wrote:I formally ended the no soul conversation before embarking on why I subscribe to the idea of soul .. so I cannot be blamed for peddling. I object to this characterization. You asked me, my idea about soul. I replied. What is my fault that you accuse me?
I don't understand why you concede so early. The situation is not so simple. The canon doesn't present Buddha simply saying there is no self. It presents him on side (1) saying nibbana is deathless state and supreme security (i.e. an afterlife), it presents him as saying those who say he's teaching obliteration are misrrpresenting him (i.e. supports afterlife again), but then side (2) there are the agnostic suttas that turn him into a court jester saying that although his whole religion is about getting to nibbana after death he cannot tell you if you will cease or continue in nibbana. Hello, he told us that already many times! He taught side 1 all over the place. It should be obvious that side 2 is a characature making fun of Buddha. I don't get why I seem to be the only one to see that.
Nibbana is not an afterlife, he clearly states that in the suttas which you so call the "agnostic suttas" and which you so easily toss aside. The point that all of us are trying to get you to understand here is that tossing aside those suttas is a grave error and you only do so because of your incessant clinging to the self theory. If one wants to get a good understanding of what the Buddha taught, one has to look at the entire canon, not just pick and choose whatever one likes. It's the same with the interpretation of any collection of texts, like the bible. Your cherry picking of sources and dividing the canon into what you like and what you don't like is why your view is totally out of line with the teachings of the Tathagata.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: what do no-selfers think the aggregates are?

Post by Javi » Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:55 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
binocular wrote:No, you're misrepresenting him. He's just allowing for the possibility of the existence of something, on the grounds that experiential knowledge is limited. Allowing for the possibility that something exists is not the same as saying it exists.
You haven't been reading his posts then, he is emphatically stating that there is a self outside of the aggregates, that it exits, he shows no interest in taking an agnostic view on the topic and practicing the teachings as taught.
The post you're responding to was not about davidbrainnerd however, looks like you got confused like I did. That line of the thread runs back to No_Mind
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

Sujith Manoharan
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:57 am

Re: what do no-selfers think the aggregates are?

Post by Sujith Manoharan » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:49 am

No_Mind wrote: "But I am an Indian and it gives me some insight into his mind and what he saw (mostly because Hindu religion has at its surface remained the same for 3,500 years .. note I say Hindu religion is unchanged not Hindu philosophy). When I observe Hindu worship and read his suttas thereafter, it becomes immediately apparent what he was trying to say." The highlighted part is what you strategically omitted.

I see what he saw. Being a person who is both Hindu but not one (details written in conversation with ToVincent a page back) who having a high caste surname has access to worship and temples but does not believe in it .. being a person reasonably well versed in Upanishads and Hindu thought .. being a person reasonably well versed in what Buddha taught .. being logical, rational .. I can see what he despised and I can understand why. If I see Hindu worship and then read his suttas .. what he says makes absolute sense (speaking of Vedic Hinduism only).
Huh. And you go on to whine about hubris later in this thread.

Your position makes no sense. Watching Hindu worship with a 'rational, logical' mind can hardly make one understand the Buddha's Teaching. Constantly throwing your caste association (all too casually) doesn't make your reasoning stronger either. If you are well-versed in the Upanishads, then you should know that it is an excruciatingly painful mass of contradictions. You seem to deride everyone here because the dominant interpretation of the Teaching has a nihilistic flavor. But what is to be expected when the declaration of an Arahant is: Birth has been destroyed ?

Did the Buddha leave his family and kingdom because he saw Hindu rituals and 'despised' what he saw ? In the Canon, there is only one consistent picture of the Bodhisatta before his Awakening - a person who wanted answers for the questions which made him become an ascetic when he was 29.
His refutation of basically every system that existed at the time came after his Awakening.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: S101 and 62 guests