Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Exploring modern Theravāda interpretations of the Buddha's teaching.
Post Reply
Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Circle5 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:47 pm

Not to derail another topic, I will start a new one. I have just read the 5 part interview with Nanananda and realized I was indeed fighting a strawman until now. This is not the existentialism of Nanavira, this is illusionism and non-dualism of Mahayana variaty. To my shame, I've never knew what mahayana is about. I became a therevadian from the start and always considered mahayana as new age stuff top to bottom. Apparently there is also this non-dualist and emptiness philosophy to mahayana that I never knew about.

I will first start with a criticism of the interview in question, then continue with a criticism of the mahayana non-dualism doctrine itself.
In the floodlights of paññā there is no room for the shadows of viññāṇa . The delusion of self love reflects a world, so there’s the two: an I and a world. Reflections on the eye, reflections on the ear, reflections on the mind: taking these reflections that fall on the senses as true, the materialists go looking for a world out there. When the Buddha called all of that a mere illusion, he meant all, including concepts. That’s why it is said sabbadhammakkhayaṃ pattovimutto upadhisaṅkhaye . [4] Mind and dhammas is the last resort of delusion. This is one of the most controversial of Bhante Ñāṇananda’s views.
I now see what Nanananda is considering to be the self: it is consciousness. He has not understood that it is depdendently arisen and changing all the time because of not looking at it from the right angle.

As for Mahayana accusations:
“All those kinds of dual­i­ties, be it asti/nāsti or sabbaṃ ekattaṃ/sabbaṃ puthuttaṃ etc. were rejected by the Bud­dha: majjhena Tathā­gato Dhammaṃ deseti – he taught the Dhamma by the mid­dle. It’s not just the mid­dle path. It’s not a mix­ture of 50% of each. We usu­ally think that the mid­dle is between two ends. It’s a rejec­tion of both ends and an intro­duc­tion of a novel stand­point.
His inter­pre­ta­tion of paṭiccasamuppāda, which dra­mat­i­cally devi­ates from the tra­di­tional exe­ge­sis, has earned Bhante Ñāṇananda a few vehe­ment crit­ics. He amus­edly men­tions a recent let­ter sent by a monk where he was accused of ‘being a dis­grace to the Theriya tra­di­tion’. This crit­i­cism, no doubt com­ing from a Ther­avāda dog­ma­tist, is under­stand­able see­ing how accom­mo­dat­ing Bhante Ñāṇananda is when it comes to teach­ings tra­di­tion­ally con­sid­ered Mahāyāna, hence taboo for any self-respecting Ther­avādin. How­ever, if one delves deeper, one would see that he is only try­ing to stay as close as pos­si­ble to early Bud­dhist teachings.

“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nib­bāna ser­mons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already found in the Sut­tas. Teach­ers like Nāgār­juna brought to light what was already there but was hid­den from view. Unfor­tu­nately his later fol­low­ers turned it in to a vāda.”

He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven. Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamād­hya­makakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Ven. Nāgār­juna was right: at the end, all is empty. We are not will­ing to accept that exis­tence is a per­ver­sion. Exis­tence is suf­fer­ing pre­cisely because it is a perversion.”
And why not add a little postmodernism into the mix? It never hurts:
“What is con­sid­ered the ‘truth’ is rel­a­tive to each indi­vid­ual. Each per­son gives evi­dence in the court of real­ity based on his own level of expe­ri­ence. For exam­ple, par­ents often give false expla­na­tions to their lit­tle chil­dren. But these are true to the kids. When asked, the kid will tell what his par­ents told him. It’s true for the child, but not for us. In the famous com­men­tar­ial story about Ven. Tissa Thera we find him see­ing a woman as a skele­ton, and say­ing so when asked by her hus­band. The ven­er­a­ble was closer to the truth.

“When we tran­scend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The pre­vi­ous one is now false. What one expe­ri­ences may not be what is expe­ri­enced by the world in gen­eral, but that may well be truer. But how do we reach the ulti­mate truth? This is beau­ti­fully explained in the Dhātuvibhaṇga Sutta: Taṃ saccaṃ, yaṃ amosad­hammaṃ nib­bānaṃ. And from the Dvay­atānu­pas­sanā Sutta: amosad­hammaṃ nib­bānaṃ tad ariyā sac­cato vidū. It is Nib­bāna that is of non-falsifying nature, where there is no ‘thing’. Nib­bāna is the high­est truth because there is no other truth to tran­scend it.
The simile given here by Nanananda to justify postmodernism is not correct. If the parent tells the kid "the world is flat", it is incorrect to say "that is true for the kid" and go on to conclude that "there are just different levels of truth" and etc. What is correct to say is that "the kid believes the world is flat". The world will still not be flat despite the kid believing in it. If the kid were to sail in a boat around the world, the kid would sail just the same as everybody else despite his belief that the world is flat. Or for example one might believe he is Napoleon.

In my opinion, the fact that Nanananda is using such silly arguments shows he is not exactly a high caliber thinker. I've seen better stuff here on DW from our regular postmodernist than Nanananda arguments. He wouldn't last a topic over here.
I ask Bhante Ñāṇananda how we should understand the connection between pancupādā - nakkhandha and nāma - rūpa. “It is quite common to hear that these two are the same: that rūpa - upādānakkhandha is the same as the rūpa in nama - rūpa , and the other four aggregates are nāma . That is like trying to measure distance in kilograms – a confusion.
That is what Buddha says explicitly in many suttas. He asks "and what is nama" or "and what is rupa" and responds like that. Some suttas can be twisted, while some can simply be ignored altogether if they don't fit our views about what the historical Buddha supposedly taught.
He will realize that, as in the case of the dumb show, he is involved with things that do not really exist.
And what is that duality? The same duality seen by the dog on a plank over water.” Bhante Ñāṇananda is referring to a simile he has often used in Dhamma discussions: A dog is crossing a plank over a stream. Half way through it looks into the water and sees another dog there. It wags its tail and the other responds. It snarls and the other reacts. It looks away to ignore, but when it looks again the water dog is still there looking on. The view of an existing self is also due to such unwise attention. “I think therefore I am” is the resulting wrong conclusion. Neither narcissistic love nor masochistic hate can solve the problem. Ignoring with a cynical sneer is to evade the problem. Therefore one has to thrash-down this problem of the elusive self-image to the basic confrontation between consciousness and name and form. 
“Reflect Rightly on the Reflection”, From topsy - turvydom to Wisdom “ Nāma - rūpa is a deception. It is unreal. But in the illusion of viññāna , wherever you look, it is there. What ever it may be, whether it’s a sight, or a sound, or a thought, it is just vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phassa, or manasikāra.
Certainly not a solipsist or a philosophical idealist. And of course he is perfectly in line with the Buddha doctrine of just 4 aggregates not 5.
But here again there is a common mis interpretation: when listing the nāma - dhammas, some start from phassa, vedanā. They put phassa to the front. But phassa has to be at the back.” He says the above in Sinhala, where the word for ‘back’ is ‘ passa ’. The pun is lost in translation. As for putting phassa first, it is often seen in the Abhidhamma literature when listing the cetasikas.

“They say so because in paṭiccasamuppāda, phassa comes before vedanā . That doesn’t apply here. In the Suttas, such as the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta , the ordering is never in that form. The Buddha and the Arahants were not mistaken; logically one can have phassa first, but psychologically it is vedanā that is primary. It is through vedanā that one recognizes the four 696 Nibbàna Ý The Mind Stilled great elements, not through phassa. The self notion hinges on vedanā . That is why it deserves to be the first. “ So one develops a saññā according to vedanā, based on which one has cetanā , at which point the ‘per sonality’ is taken for granted. This creates the duality necessary for phassa.
I keep saying many famous monks have simply not read the nikayas. They just haven't read them, period. B.Dhammanando has a long post in the past explaining that indeed many famous monks simply have not read them. I have claimed many times in the past that Nanananda or Nanavira have only read the first sutta out of chapter 2 from SN, maybe a couple more from that chapter 2. They've never read a page of chapter 3 - the book of aggregates. I have caught them and their followers many times with the chicken in the bag and no matter what they say, I know they just haven't read that book of aggregates. They are not fooling anyone. It's like one would say the teach about Jesus in the biology book. Of course a person who has actually read the book will laugh about that. Reading the Book of Aggregates chapter is the thing that destroys any possible claims that these philosophies have anything to do with what the historical Buddha taught.

The fact that feeling comes from contact is repeated so many times in the suttas. It is also given as an example in a discussion with a brahmin where Buddha was making a case for his teaching being real, easy to be seen in real life, not based on stories about deiteis like those of the Bhramins. He said that no matter what views they have, all can agree that "feeling comes from contact". It is such a clear thing that I too always use it as an example when speaking with other people. You can never debate that. Feeling comes from contact, the same as rain comes from clouds. It's such a clear thing that it's incredible how Nanananda could get that wrong.

Take for example a car parking sensor. There is the parking sensor and there are things that are sensed by it. There are only 2 elements here so no contact is produced. Being no contact, there is no feeling, no volition, no perception. Only when there are 3 elements can there be contact. In the case of living beings, we have for example: the eye, eye-sights and eye-consciousness. "The meeting of the 3 means contact." Because of the existence of this contact, feelings, volition and perception appears. If there would be no contact, there would be no feeling whatsoever, just like in the case of cars or computers. This is the difference between living beings and non-living things.

You can explain this to anyone and they will understand. It's so simple and so clear that it's even used by the Buddha as an example of a thing that is not debatable no matter what ones views are. (in the sutta with the bhramins)


I've only finished my criticism of 2 and a half pages out of 5. It is mainly dealing with inconsistency regarding the suttas. I will continue latter with the second part and with a 3rd post dealing with mahayana philosophy itself.

alan
Posts: 2814
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by alan » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:21 pm

What is wrong with you?

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Circle5 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:49 pm

Let's look at the continuation of that last paragraph, to fully understand Nanananda philosophy:
“They say so because in paṭiccasamuppāda, phassa comes before vedanā . That doesn’t apply here. In the Suttas, such as the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta , the ordering is never in that form. The Buddha and the Arahants were not mistaken; logically one can have phassa first, but psychologically it is vedanā that is primary. It is through vedanā that one recognizes the four 696 Nibbàna Ý The Mind Stilled great elements, not through phassa. The self notion hinges on vedanā . That is why it deserves to be the first. “ So one develops a saññā according to vedanā, based on which one has cetanā , at which point the ‘per sonality’ is taken for granted. This creates the duality necessary for phassa.
We have already shown how the fact that feeling comes from contact is such a simply and clear thing that Buddha even uses it as an example for a thing that nobody can debate, no matter what strange views they might have.

What we see with this paragraph is the explanation about why Nanavira got to this upside-down conclusion. Indeed self-view appears because of feeling. I totally agree on that. The problem is, Nanananda does not understand how it actually works, because he has not read the Book of Aggregates and tried figuring things out by himself but ended up in a total confusion.

There is the tendency towards conceit that exists. All experience, all instances of consciousness that appear are tainted by it. For example one might be a Transilvanian and have an incredible tendency towards peacefulness and calmness. All his experience will be tainted by that. In all kind of different circimstances, he will behave or feel things differently because of this strong tendency that is with him all the time. In the same way, there is this tendency towards conceit that is based on craving, that is craving itself. This tendency existing makes things feel like "this is mine" or "this is my body" or "this is my consciousness" etc. Based on this feeling, self view will appear. There will appear the conclusion "there is a self, otherwise why has this feeling arise in the first place ?". This is simply an assumption. To quote the suttas:
"Now that assumption is a fabrication. What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by the feeling born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
Now what we get at Nanavira is finding out that self-view is based on feeling but having no idea where that feeling came from or how the aggregates work in general, because he has not read the Book of Aggregates from SN.

He claims "the self notion hinges on feeling" (which is true) and then says "this is why one has to put feeling first (before contact)". This again shows the low level of intellectual capability on his side, since this is not a correct argument. It is like saying "a car moving depends on fuel, this is why we can say that fuel has created the car, cause the whole thing about the car moving rests on fuel". Logic 101. He is not even bothered with looking at how things work in real life, he just says "uhm, yea, this feelings looks important, let's say it DESERVES (his own words) to be put before contact".

From this, we then get the idea that:
So where does pañcupādānakkhandha come in? Pañcupādānakkhandhā is the final result of the constant tussle between viññāṇa and nāma - rūpa . This is made clear in the Mahāsaāyatanika Sutta . What is gathered from the six viññāṇas, at the end, are filtered down to things grasped as these are my forms, these are my feelings, these are my perceptions.
Was there any more need for proof that he is an illusionist ? He claims here that the 5 aggreates come from the "constant tussle" (whatever that might mean) between consciousness and nama-rupa, that the result in the end is "my feelings, my perceptions etc" and that is all that exists, just the illusion that there are 5 aggregates "when in reality there is nothing" (to quote him). Standard illusionism.
“In all other religions, viññāṇa was taken as a unit, and worse, as the soul. It is taught that even if e very thing else is impermanent, this isn’t. And it is taught as that which reaches Brahmā . But the Buddha pointed out that it is a mere illusion. It can’t exist on its own. ’The Mind Stilled.’
The fact that a thing can not exist on it's own does not make it an illusion. Everything is conditioned. If we want to change the dictionary deffinition of "conditioned" to "illusion" then we can do that and then go and claim it is all an illusion.

What if I say: Everything is conditioned, therefore it is not an illusion. - what are you gona do now ?
Or what if I say: Everything is conditioned, therefore everything is God. - what in the world are you gona do now ? I've just proved the christians were right all along.
They ask, ‘why, even when I don’t look at this thing, doesn’t it continue existing’? But really there is only a diṭṭha , a seen. There is only a suta , a heard.
A claim refuted through recent findings in quantum physics that confirm the buddhist interpretation and destroyed both materialist and illusionist interpretations of the double slit experiment.
But the moment we think of a seen ‘thing’, a heard ‘thing’, we are trapped. We create things with maññanā , ideation. “ The problem with ‘things’ is solved in the Bāhiya Sutta: there are only di ṭṭha, suta, muta, viññāta , nothing else. That is the theme in the Kālakārāma Sutta too. As long as one does maññanā about these, one would be deluded.” Here we seem to have encountered a more thorough answer to my earlier question about the ‘reality of things’, and it is quite clear that Bhante Ñāṇananda has quite a different view from the standard Theravadin interpretation which is closer to naïve realism. It is also opposed to Ven. Ñāṇavīra Thera’s explanations, and readers who are familiar with Clearing the Path would notice that Bhante Ñāṇananda’s interpretation is close to Sister Vajira ’s earlier views.
He believes that because the tendency for conceit exists, things exists. He believes things exist only because they are taken up as self, because there exists this tendency for conceit and this itself is what makes things exist. He thinks that when this tendency towards conceit will not exist anymore, nothing will exist anymore. This is where he got the idea that "nothing really exists", it is in this way that he meant it. As for the arahant 5 aggregates continuing to exist, that is a problem left unsolved, a problem already present in his philosophy due to the 1 life interpretation of pattica. At least his view is consistend in the problems it rises. But at least we get an attempt to explain what happens to the arahant in such a situation, ignoring the problem of the 5 aggregates of the arahant:
For the Arahant all concepts have become transparent to such a degree in that all - encompassing vision, that their boundaries together with their umbra and penumbra have yielded to the radiance of wis dom. This, then, is the significance of the word anantaṃ (endless, infinite). Thus the paradoxically detached gaze of the con templative sage as he looks through the concepts is one which has no object (ārammaṇa ) as the point of focus for the worldling to identify it with. It is a gaze that is neither conscious nor non-conscious (nasaññīassa, saññīcapanaassa ), neither attentive nor non - attentive ( namanasikareyya, manasicapanakareyya ), neither fixed nor not fixed (najhāyati, jhāyaticapana ) – a gaze that knows no horizon.
From ideas like this with "gaze that has no horizont" we can easily see why Nananandians love to take those 2 poetic verses from DN about "consciousness, luminous all around" to justify consciousness existing in nibbana. Like some form of consciousness that is not being put on anything. Of course such ideas are refuted a million times in the suttas. The ideas of consciousness existing in nibbana is addressed so many times and in such a clear way it is incredible how one can claim such things. But remember, such people have not actually read the nikayas. It's not that they've read them but twisted them, no, the problem is that they simply have not read them.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:00 am

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:49 pm
Let's look at the continuation of that last paragraph, to fully understand Nanananda philosophy:
“They say so because in paṭiccasamuppāda, phassa comes before vedanā . That doesn’t apply here. In the Suttas, such as the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta , the ordering is never in that form. The Buddha and the Arahants were not mistaken; logically one can have phassa first, but psychologically it is vedanā that is primary. It is through vedanā that one recognizes the four 696 Nibbàna Ý The Mind Stilled great elements, not through phassa. The self notion hinges on vedanā . That is why it deserves to be the first. “ So one develops a saññā according to vedanā, based on which one has cetanā , at which point the ‘per sonality’ is taken for granted. This creates the duality necessary for phassa.
We have already shown how the fact that feeling comes from contact is such a simply and clear thing that Buddha even uses it as an example for a thing that nobody can debate, no matter what strange views they might have.
I think you are misunderstanding the previous paragraph. He's talking about the ordering in name-and-form (mentality-materiality in this translation):
“And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention—these are called mentality.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn9

:heart:
Mike

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Circle5 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:07 am

No, I have checked those terms before answering. Phassa = contact, Vedana = feeling.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:15 am

In the list I quoted feeling is listed first. Just as he says. You are confusing two different lists.

:heart:
Mike

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Circle5 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:00 am

Indeed you are right. I've re-read it again more carefully and that is what he is saying.

Caodemarte
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Caodemarte » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:32 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:00 am
Indeed you are right. I've re-read it again more carefully and that is what he is saying.
I think you are confusing more than that. Your use of terms like post modernism, Mahayana, etc. does not seem to follow standard usage. Perhaps you could define these terms as you are using them if you wish to pursue this topic,

Circle5
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Circle5 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:03 am

Caodemarte wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:32 am
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:00 am
Indeed you are right. I've re-read it again more carefully and that is what he is saying.
I think you are confusing more than that. Your use of terms like post modernism, Mahayana, etc. does not seem to follow standard usage. Perhaps you could define these terms as you are using them if you wish to pursue this topic,
Postmodernism = the idea that there is no truth, logic has no value, everything is subjective, everything is relative, etc.

Mahayana = https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ay_27.html

This is what started this discussion in another topic.

Saengnapha
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:45 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:03 am
Caodemarte wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:32 am
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:00 am
Indeed you are right. I've re-read it again more carefully and that is what he is saying.
I think you are confusing more than that. Your use of terms like post modernism, Mahayana, etc. does not seem to follow standard usage. Perhaps you could define these terms as you are using them if you wish to pursue this topic,
Postmodernism = the idea that there is no truth, logic has no value, everything is subjective, everything is relative, etc.

Mahayana = https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ay_27.html

This is what started this discussion in another topic.
I think the only strawman you are fighting is yourself. But, you don't see this, do you?

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by aflatun » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:53 am

alan wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:21 pm
What is wrong with you?
:clap: Precisely...
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by aflatun » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:59 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:45 am

I think the only strawman you are fighting is yourself. But, you don't see this, do you?
If he can't see that its shameful to publish hundreds of posts criticizing in the most irreverent and sloppy way things he's never actually read, I dare say its near impossible that he could see this :)

What an amazing idea that is. If I want to criticize something, I should read it first. Hmmmm...

:rofl:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Garrib
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by Garrib » Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:53 am

aflatun wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:53 am
alan wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:21 pm
What is wrong with you?
:clap: Precisely...
Guys...that's mean

chownah
Posts: 6596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:58 am

alan wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:21 pm
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with YOU?
chownah

chownah
Posts: 6596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:59 am

aflatun wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:53 am
alan wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:21 pm
What is wrong with you?
:clap: Precisely...
What is wrong with YOU?
chownah

chownah
Posts: 6596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:02 am

Sappurisa Sutta: A Person of Integrity
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of no integrity.' Which four?

"There is the case where a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals another person's bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's bad points in full & in detail, without omission, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.'

"Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, does not reveal another person's good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.'

"Then again, a person of no integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.'

"Then again, a person of no integrity, when unasked, reveals his own good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of no integrity.'

"Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of no integrity.'

"Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of integrity.' Which four?

"There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal another person's bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

"Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another person's good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

"Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

"Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

"Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a person of integrity.'"
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18577
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Criticism of Nanananda, illusionism and Mahayana non-dualism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:04 am

Greetings,

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests