By materialism I use the term in the philosophical sense, as in there being nothing but matter and physical processes and so, by extension, there is only one life for beings.SarathW wrote:Buddha acknowledge material pleasure. But there are higher pleasures.clw_uk wrote:SarathW wrote:It appears any perception and feeling is a view.
However Noble Eightfold Path is a view which lead to cessation of perception and feeling.
It that sense they are truths.
Wrong view does not mean that they are falls.
Wrong views are called such because they do not lead to end suffering.
So materialism could be true, yet it's unwise to adopt such a view because of it's implications?
It appears due to our ignorance we don't see them.
What does it mean to have no views?
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
I don't really see it as a problem. Their views were partially right (in the noble life aspect at least) and perhaps kammically they were not capable of more. In fact I think it is far better to hold a flawed view that entails fundamental sila and truly live it, rather than hold the Right View and be a crap follower of it.clw_uk wrote:I think we are nearly on the same page, however there is a problem.Dan74-new wrote:That's basically my approach.clw_uk wrote:So what I am getting here is that we can hold views based upon how practical they are in leading to Nibbana and the ultimate cessation of views.
It seems to me then that Buddha isn't saying that some views are necessarily true, but instead he is saying that certain views are useful. Would that be a fair assement?
The Buddha did distinguish between wrong views and right views, but at the end of the day, even the right view misapplied can lead to grief. So it boils down, IMO, to what use you make of views. "Are your views any use?"
It seems that someone can make use of a "wrong view" in order to live a noble life. The best of example of this is Epicurus, yet, according to the orthodox position, Epicurus couldn't have lived a noble life, as materialist as he was. The same can be said of the Stoics and their doctrines.
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
That is nihilism.
Buddha avoid both eternalism and nihilism and taught dependent origination.
According to Buddha's teaching both eternalism and nihilism are just wrong views. They are neither right nor wrong.
Buddha avoid both eternalism and nihilism and taught dependent origination.
According to Buddha's teaching both eternalism and nihilism are just wrong views. They are neither right nor wrong.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
In the first definition you gave: no, I don't think one can have wrong view and become free from dukkha. As for second, who can say?clw_uk wrote:Mkoll wrote:What do you mean by a "noble life"?clw_uk wrote:It seems that someone can make use of a "wrong view" in order to live a noble life. The best of example of this is Epicurus, yet, according to the orthodox position, Epicurus couldn't have lived a noble life, as materialist as he was. The same can be said of the Stoics and their doctrines.
Free from dukkha, or as free as possible from it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
I don't really see it as a problem. Their views were partially right (in the noble life aspect at least) and perhaps kammically they were not capable of more. In fact I think it is far better to hold a flawed view that entails fundamental sila and truly live it, rather than hold the Right View and be a crap follower of it.
Once again I find myself in agreement with you, however I should state that the orthodox view is that to hold a wrong view is bad kamma in of itself.
However I think it's far more interesting to ask if Buddha really believed in the doctrines he expounded, in terms of kamma and rebirth, or if he merely viewed them as being useful? Or perhaps you could say that they aren't views when directly known? I'm not sure.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
SarathW wrote:That is nihilism.
Buddha avoid both eternalism and nihilism and taught dependent origination.
According to Buddha's teaching both eternalism and nihilism are just wrong views. They are neither right nor wrong.
What makes materialism nihilistic? You can still find meaning in a materialistic universe.
However this is off track. The question is about what it means to hold no views in Buddhism. Why is dependent origination not classed as a view point?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
There are different level of happiness.
A person may have a temporary release from Dukkha.
A person may have a temporary release from Dukkha.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
I think the teaching of dependent origination also a view.
It is the medicine not the cure.
It is the medicine not the cure.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
If you have Right View, with a capital R and V, i.e. Noble, i.e. at least a stream-winner, by definition you can't be a crap follower of sila.Dan74-new wrote:In fact I think it is far better to hold a flawed view that entails fundamental sila and truly live it, rather than hold the Right View and be a crap follower of it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
Have a look at MN 74.clw_uk wrote:Why is dependent origination not classed as a view point?
- "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]
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
Sure, but are we really talking about stream-enterers here?Mkoll wrote:If you have Right View, with a capital R and V, i.e. Noble, i.e. at least a stream-winner, by definition you can't be a crap follower of sila.Dan74-new wrote:In fact I think it is far better to hold a flawed view that entails fundamental sila and truly live it, rather than hold the Right View and be a crap follower of it.
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
I thought you might be because you used "Right View" as a proper noun.Dan74-new wrote:Sure, but are we really talking about stream-enterers here?Mkoll wrote:If you have Right View, with a capital R and V, i.e. Noble, i.e. at least a stream-winner, by definition you can't be a crap follower of sila.Dan74-new wrote:In fact I think it is far better to hold a flawed view that entails fundamental sila and truly live it, rather than hold the Right View and be a crap follower of it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
Its always worth taking a break from internet views, in order to listen to the wise words of Ajahn Sumedho in : "Who needs enlightenment when I have my opinions? "clw_uk wrote: I would like to discuss what it means to be free from views within Buddhism.
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
Mkoll, I did, but what I had in mind was that superficially we may subscribe to the Right View but it may not have "penetrated to the marrow".
Aloka, Ajahn Sumedho is always good value!
Aloka, Ajahn Sumedho is always good value!
- The Thinker
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:12 pm
- Location: UK
Re: What does it mean to have no views?
Perhaps the Arahant understands that all views change, what was once thought truth is no longer, everything is in a process of change.
Now there does exist contradictions within any teaching, and interpretation is not universal, Who is the one with wisdom? that becomes a debate and point of conflict itself, does it not?. No view relinquishes this craving of views, and the Arahant is not to be seen or known.
Now there does exist contradictions within any teaching, and interpretation is not universal, Who is the one with wisdom? that becomes a debate and point of conflict itself, does it not?. No view relinquishes this craving of views, and the Arahant is not to be seen or known.
"Watch your heart, observe. Be the observer, be the knower, not the condition" Ajahn Sumedho volume5 - The Wheel Of Truth