Friends
When I was young, ontology mattered a lot more.
Now that I am getting older, soteriology has taken prime importance.
All the details give me a headache, and the only question I keep asking myself is: what is the way out?
Have you had a similar experience?
At some point, you stop worrying about the ontological status of self etc. and instead think only of liberation.
Therefore, the question is: is practice more important than knowledge?
Ontology vs Soteriology
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Greetings Alfa,
The Noble Eightfold Path is what is important.
Metta,
Paul.
Good for you.
What "practice"?
The Noble Eightfold Path is what is important.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
-
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
- Location: Sri Lanka
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
yes. I used to think science might hold all the answers. Then i realised or may be i read it some where, science is a process of ever refining saññas or mental models of the world. Scientists still don't know how far down or up the rabbit hole goes.
'Ontology vs Soteriology' ; I would say whats peaceful is going beyond both. Whatever saññas are simply saññas. They arise and cease with contact.
'Ontology vs Soteriology' ; I would say whats peaceful is going beyond both. Whatever saññas are simply saññas. They arise and cease with contact.
Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Practice and Knowledge are one in the same.
Practice is like throwing a dart, Theory is like knowing where to throw the dart. You need both.
The only person who can have practice without a prior theory is the Buddha or Pacceka Buddha, but note even he attains his theory from a prior Buddha by recollecting his past lives with previous Buddhas and hearing the Dhamma that way.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html"And how is one the type of person who both thunders and rains? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues... question & answer sessions. He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.' ... 'This is the origination of stress.' ... 'This is the cessation of stress.' ... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who both thunders and rains. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that both thunders and rains.
Practice is like throwing a dart, Theory is like knowing where to throw the dart. You need both.
The only person who can have practice without a prior theory is the Buddha or Pacceka Buddha, but note even he attains his theory from a prior Buddha by recollecting his past lives with previous Buddhas and hearing the Dhamma that way.
- JamesTheGiant
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
James starts by looking up the meaning of Ontology and Soteriology...
I used to know what those words meant, back when I got a degree in philosophy.
Not any more, now I just follow the path.
I used to know what those words meant, back when I got a degree in philosophy.
Not any more, now I just follow the path.
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Knowledge (knowledge that is relevant to awakening) is an aspect of practice, and practice may lead to more clear knowledge. Practice is not some mechanical activity - it starts and ends with knowledge.
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Yes. Renowned teachers teach this, not to mention the Buddha himself. He repeatedly says "Meditate, do not be negligent, lest you regret it later." Of course, a baseline intellectual understanding of what to practice and how to approach it is needed. But beyond that, the work itself is the only thing that generates real results.alfa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:39 am Friends
When I was young, ontology mattered a lot more.
Now that I am getting older, soteriology has taken prime importance.
All the details give me a headache, and the only question I keep asking myself is: what is the way out?
Have you had a similar experience?
At some point, you stop worrying about the ontological status of self etc. and instead think only of liberation.
Therefore, the question is: is practice more important than knowledge?
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: Ontology vs Soteriology
Buddha said there are 2 types of disciples: those that are dragged forward by wisdom and those that are dragged by tranquility. A person doing good with wisdom will then start doing better in other areas too. On the other hand, a person doing good with his overall traits will slowly start gaining more wisdom over time.
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Whenever I bump into the word ontology discussed on a buddhist forum it bugs me. My own annoyance is based on my lack of grasp on how it relates to Buddha's doctrine.
One definition of ontology on the WWW is as given below. For Buddha there was neither being nor non-being, SN 12.15, Kaccanagotta. Did Buddha ever consider Ontology relevant? Is there a sutta that says so?
Ontology:
One definition of ontology on the WWW is as given below. For Buddha there was neither being nor non-being, SN 12.15, Kaccanagotta. Did Buddha ever consider Ontology relevant? Is there a sutta that says so?
Ontology:
Regards1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2.
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
"what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Greetings Pulsar,
It's a way to characterise the views of those who (despite SN 12.15 etc.) are committed to views about existence and non-existence, and retrofit their beliefs about existence and non-existence into their presentations of Dhamma.
So, no, he never spoke of it as being relevant, but you could argue that he explicitly called it out as being irrelevant. See: The offense of lokāyata (metaphysics/cosmology).
Metta,
Paul.
It's often mentioned in the context of pointing out that ontology is not what the Buddha taught.Pulsar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 2:48 pm Whenever I bump into the word ontology discussed on a buddhist forum it bugs me. My own annoyance is based on my lack of grasp on how it relates to Buddha's doctrine.
One definition of ontology on the WWW is as given below. For Buddha there was neither being nor non-being, SN 12.15, Kaccanagotta. Did Buddha ever consider Ontology relevant? Is there a sutta that says so?
Ontology:Regards1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2.
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
"what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"
It's a way to characterise the views of those who (despite SN 12.15 etc.) are committed to views about existence and non-existence, and retrofit their beliefs about existence and non-existence into their presentations of Dhamma.
So, no, he never spoke of it as being relevant, but you could argue that he explicitly called it out as being irrelevant. See: The offense of lokāyata (metaphysics/cosmology).
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
Retro wrote
With love
Brilliant, it sank in.It's often mentioned in the context of pointing out that ontology is not what the Buddha taught.
With love
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
MN 117 (B. Bodhi) wrote:...
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
...
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Ontology vs Soteriology
mjaviem wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:38 pmMN 117 (B. Bodhi) wrote:...
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
...
Cleared. αδόξαστος.