Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by auto » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:59 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:50 pm
auto wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:47 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:40 am

Observation of what, Dinsdale? Breath? Thoughts?
If our whole thought structure is based on assumptions, how can you have an open mind? It is correct to say that I don't agree with Theravada practices. There is no alternative. Everything you do is an attempt by this thought structure to escape itself, adjust itself, survive another day. You stop engaging it for anything but the mundane, the factual. When you have attention for this, that awareness of what the thought structure represents can disengage from all the chatter, all the psychological wanderings that we all do. If it doesn't stop, you are only provoking its survival by engaging in various practices and concentrations. What wants to survive is the thought structure, not a self. Everything that we know is tied up in the thought structure. The thought structure is the distortion, the dream of existence. Enlightenment is another idea of the thought structure trying to survive. Awakening is still part of the dream of existence.
Are you suggesting arupa jhanas?
Did I mention anything like that?
Arupa jhanas are formless, no thought structures.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:02 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:49 pm
Do I need to prove salt is salty to someone who has not tasted salt? Find out for yourself if what I said works or not. I can't even prove that I exist. Maybe you'd like to try?
That's not really the most appropriate analogy. If you make constructive suggestions about practice or doctrine which can be tried out by people, then you will have my blessing and possibly participation. If you merely say that existing approaches don't or can't work for people, then I'll challenge you to prove it; because that's mere unsubstantiated negativity.

In this thread, you have been challenged because you said someone's approach
is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.


Not because you recommended anything analogous to tasting the saltiness of salt.

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by auto » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:22 pm

@Saengnapa
was wondering now how the thought forms look like?



i'm way off?
you like to stop that activity?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:22 pm

auto wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:22 pm
@Saengnapa
was wondering now how the thought forms look like?



i'm way off?
you like to stop that activity?
Impossible to stop. And, those were not thoughts.

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by auto » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:32 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:02 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:49 pm
Do I need to prove salt is salty to someone who has not tasted salt? Find out for yourself if what I said works or not. I can't even prove that I exist. Maybe you'd like to try?
That's not really the most appropriate analogy. If you make constructive suggestions about practice or doctrine which can be tried out by people, then you will have my blessing and possibly participation. If you merely say that existing approaches don't or can't work for people, then I'll challenge you to prove it; because that's mere unsubstantiated negativity.

In this thread, you have been challenged because you said someone's approach
is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.


Not because you recommended anything analogous to tasting the saltiness of salt.


i wonder if Saengnapha could translate what UG is saying and what the opponent doesn't understand.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:35 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:02 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:49 pm
Do I need to prove salt is salty to someone who has not tasted salt? Find out for yourself if what I said works or not. I can't even prove that I exist. Maybe you'd like to try?
That's not really the most appropriate analogy. If you make constructive suggestions about practice or doctrine which can be tried out by people, then you will have my blessing and possibly participation. If you merely say that existing approaches don't or can't work for people, then I'll challenge you to prove it; because that's mere unsubstantiated negativity.

In this thread, you have been challenged because you said someone's approach
is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.


Not because you recommended anything analogous to tasting the saltiness of salt.
I explained why I said it. Perhaps you missed that. Perhaps you just disagree with me. I don't feel like I have to get you to agree with me. I said what I said. If you want to think it over that is your decision. What I said was also not personally directed at one person but as a general approach that many subscribe to. What might seem negative to you could possibly be something that is uninspected in you. I wouldn't know, but there is nothing negative about what I am talking about. It's your own belief structure that is being challenged.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 5099
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by SDC » Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:54 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:17 am
SDC wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:58 pm
You're saying it in your own way, but I think it's pretty much the same as what the sutta is saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though.
Sorry but I don't see any connection here at all with SN 22.101 - could you explain?
Saengnapha is still describing a change. He/she wants it to be something unique to what the sutta is describing, but when you get down to the heart of the matter, there is a change in understanding based on one's effort.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 5099
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by SDC » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:02 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:40 am
If our whole thought structure is based on assumptions, how can you have an open mind? It is correct to say that I don't agree with Theravada practices. There is no alternative. Everything you do is an attempt by this thought structure to escape itself, adjust itself, survive another day. You stop engaging it for anything but the mundane, the factual. When you have attention for this, that awareness of what the thought structure represents can disengage from all the chatter, all the psychological wanderings that we all do. If it doesn't stop, you are only provoking its survival by engaging in various practices and concentrations. What wants to survive is the thought structure, not a self. Everything that we know is tied up in the thought structure. The thought structure is the distortion, the dream of existence. Enlightenment is another idea of the thought structure trying to survive. Awakening is still part of the dream of existence.
Your system that opposes thought structure is itself a thought structure - by your own definition. Just because you are supporting negation-of-theory in practice doesn't mean you've left the realm of theory - it is simply a radically scaled down version of a theory on how to engage. You've stepped from one right into another and are trying to call it something different.

Also your posts do not seem to be addressing the OP whatsoever. I am not sure if you have seen this new rule that has been added to the ToS:

i. Posts that are not mindful of the current topic, as defined in the initial post

This is not a warning just a friendly reminder that we need to bring this tangent back to the OP or perhaps bring it to another thread.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:35 pm
I explained why I said it. Perhaps you missed that. Perhaps you just disagree with me. I don't feel like I have to get you to agree with me. I said what I said. If you want to think it over that is your decision. What I said was also not personally directed at one person but as a general approach that many subscribe to. What might seem negative to you could possibly be something that is uninspected in you. I wouldn't know, but there is nothing negative about what I am talking about. It's your own belief structure that is being challenged.
Here's your post, Saengnapha:
It seems to me that the psychological has little to do with nature and is usually at odds with it. Weeding is not going to effect any natural law in place and will always be in contradiction to what is. This approach is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.
it consists of three negatives; one per sentence. Whether you are addressing one person or a trend, it would be much better if you could either substantiate those negatives (i.e. "Why does the psychological have little to do with nature?"..."Why is 'weeding' not going to affect any natural law?"..."Why is that approach all wrong?") or come up with something positive. Whether or not something is uninspected in me, or my own belief structure, or whether I agree with it, is beside the point here. I'm simply asking you to prove the substance of your point.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16993
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:41 pm

I've split this off, since it falls into the category off off-topic posts as defined in our Term of Service:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2
i. Posts that are not mindful of the current topic, as defined in the initial post
:heart:
Mike

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 904
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by dylanj » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:42 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:41 pm
I've split this off, since it falls into the category off off-topic posts as defined in our Term of Service:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2
i. Posts that are not mindful of the current topic, as defined in the initial post
:heart:
Mike
:goodpost:
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:05 am

SDC wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:02 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:40 am
If our whole thought structure is based on assumptions, how can you have an open mind? It is correct to say that I don't agree with Theravada practices. There is no alternative. Everything you do is an attempt by this thought structure to escape itself, adjust itself, survive another day. You stop engaging it for anything but the mundane, the factual. When you have attention for this, that awareness of what the thought structure represents can disengage from all the chatter, all the psychological wanderings that we all do. If it doesn't stop, you are only provoking its survival by engaging in various practices and concentrations. What wants to survive is the thought structure, not a self. Everything that we know is tied up in the thought structure. The thought structure is the distortion, the dream of existence. Enlightenment is another idea of the thought structure trying to survive. Awakening is still part of the dream of existence.
Your system that opposes thought structure is itself a thought structure - by your own definition. Just because you are supporting negation-of-theory in practice doesn't mean you've left the realm of theory - it is simply a radically scaled down version of a theory on how to engage. You've stepped from one right into another and are trying to call it something different.
No, it doesn't oppose the thought structure. It 'sees' the thought structure for what it is, the source of dukkha. There is no theory involved, but I can see what you say as being true about exchanging one theory for another, which I am not talking about, but agreeing with you. Negation of theory is a logical outcome, but it is not to be attached to. If it is attached to, it becomes another view. There is a fine line between existence and non-existence. This cannot be captured by the thought structure because it is a dream itself, conditioned by the past and subject to impermanence. There is no replacement that steps in. It is a stepping out of that circle of thought. That to me is dispassion and disinterest. Not engaging in becoming, in attachment to images, ideas, etc. Not trying to attain anything. There is a difference between opposition and what I'm trying to put forth.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:13 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:33 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:35 pm
I explained why I said it. Perhaps you missed that. Perhaps you just disagree with me. I don't feel like I have to get you to agree with me. I said what I said. If you want to think it over that is your decision. What I said was also not personally directed at one person but as a general approach that many subscribe to. What might seem negative to you could possibly be something that is uninspected in you. I wouldn't know, but there is nothing negative about what I am talking about. It's your own belief structure that is being challenged.
Here's your post, Saengnapha:
It seems to me that the psychological has little to do with nature and is usually at odds with it. Weeding is not going to effect any natural law in place and will always be in contradiction to what is. This approach is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.
it consists of three negatives; one per sentence. Whether you are addressing one person or a trend, it would be much better if you could either substantiate those negatives (i.e. "Why does the psychological have little to do with nature?"..."Why is 'weeding' not going to affect any natural law?"..."Why is that approach all wrong?") or come up with something positive. Whether or not something is uninspected in me, or my own belief structure, or whether I agree with it, is beside the point here. I'm simply asking you to prove the substance of your point.
A natural law takes place regardless of what the psychological 'thinks' about it. Weeding is a mental process. You pick and choose what you want or don't want. This works from having an image of what you think is 'right' or 'good' or what you should become. It is an attachment. You desire some things and shun others. Natural laws have nothing to do with this process. They are bio-physical in nature, happening without your mental/emotional participation. This is why I say that we are usually interfering with natural laws. In truth, we are the natural laws but our thinking separates and divides us. Is this difficult to see? I don't think so.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:11 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:40 am
It is correct to say that I don't agree with Theravada practices. There is no alternative.
:shrug:

Last edited by Dinsdale on Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:19 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:13 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:33 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:35 pm
I explained why I said it. Perhaps you missed that. Perhaps you just disagree with me. I don't feel like I have to get you to agree with me. I said what I said. If you want to think it over that is your decision. What I said was also not personally directed at one person but as a general approach that many subscribe to. What might seem negative to you could possibly be something that is uninspected in you. I wouldn't know, but there is nothing negative about what I am talking about. It's your own belief structure that is being challenged.
Here's your post, Saengnapha:
It seems to me that the psychological has little to do with nature and is usually at odds with it. Weeding is not going to effect any natural law in place and will always be in contradiction to what is. This approach is all wrong and has nothing to do with Truth.
it consists of three negatives; one per sentence. Whether you are addressing one person or a trend, it would be much better if you could either substantiate those negatives (i.e. "Why does the psychological have little to do with nature?"..."Why is 'weeding' not going to affect any natural law?"..."Why is that approach all wrong?") or come up with something positive. Whether or not something is uninspected in me, or my own belief structure, or whether I agree with it, is beside the point here. I'm simply asking you to prove the substance of your point.
A natural law takes place regardless of what the psychological 'thinks' about it. Weeding is a mental process. You pick and choose what you want or don't want. This works from having an image of what you think is 'right' or 'good' or what you should become. It is an attachment. You desire some things and shun others. Natural laws have nothing to do with this process. They are bio-physical in nature, happening without your mental/emotional participation. This is why I say that we are usually interfering with natural laws. In truth, we are the natural laws but our thinking separates and divides us. Is this difficult to see? I don't think so.
That's better! Some positive assertions, rather than mere denial of someone's viewpoint.

Here are my thoughts on them, anyway. It might be that there are "natural laws" taking place regardless of what "the psychological thinks about it". But I'm a bit unclear as to what the natural laws might be, and also what counts here as "the psychological". Many Buddhists, for example, would consider thinking to instantiate certain causal principles, such as citta-niyama or kamma-niyama. Natural laws of thinking would be a good way of putting it. Many would also draw a clear distinction between doing good things and being attached to them; for example, the difference that is pointed to by the words chanda and tanha.

If people can make these distinctions and beneficially operate with them, then it would be difficult to maintain your original point that the approach is "all wrong and has nothing to do with the truth". Such distinctions would appear to have the same abstract status as "natural law".

Or maybe it is more difficult to see than you think. I'm very willing to engage with such concepts, rather than just denying their validity or efficacy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JustSweepin, SarathW and 58 guests