Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana

Expand Messages
  • Ken H
    Hi Robert E. ... ... one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set. ... KH: You have
    Message 1 of 27 , May 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Robert E.

      ------
      <. . .>
      > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding,
      one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set.
      ------

      KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta.

      I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening.

      ------------------
      > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and
      -----------------

      KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self.

      Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend.

      I don't know which is worse.

      -------------------
      > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view.
      -------------------

      KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way.

      -------------------------
      > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-)
      -------------------------

      KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that?

      Ken H
    • Robert E
      Hi Ken H. ... You re being arrogant Ken. I do accept anatta and understand it as well as you I am sure if not moreso. You cling to doctrine like it is anatta
      Message 2 of 27 , May 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ken H.

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Robert E.
        >
        > ------
        > <. . .>
        > > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding,
        > one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set.
        > ------
        >
        > KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta.
        >
        > I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening.

        You're being arrogant Ken. I do accept anatta and understand it as well as you I am sure if not moreso. You cling to doctrine like it is anatta itself. Anatta is not a word or a thingy, it stands for no self at all. You appear to have made your version of familiar Dhamma concepts your treasured self, even though the Buddha says to cling to nothing at all, including even Right View, which is destroyed by clinging. You judge others because they don't say the right keywords and you don't understand what they are saying at all, or what they know or believe.

        > ------------------
        > > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and
        > -----------------
        >
        > KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self.

        You have the foolishness to think you know whether someone's own view is what they really think or not. If I say I don't believe in the existence of any form of self, you ought to take my word for it. You really don't know enough to look into someone else's mental state or understanding.

        > Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend.
        >
        > I don't know which is worse.

        You have no idea what "most meditators" think or know. You make it up to comfort yourself and go back to reciting your favorite concepts. That is no different than any meditator with a mantra.

        > -------------------
        > > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view.
        > -------------------
        >
        > KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way.
        >
        > -------------------------
        > > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-)
        > -------------------------
        >
        > KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that?

        Perhaps because you can say the right words but don't really know what they mean.

        Best,
        Rob E.

        - - - - - - - - - -
      • sarah
        Hi Rob E, ... ... S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) all ? There is no self, no person, no
        Message 3 of 27 , May 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Rob E,

          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

          > No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that:
          >
          > a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
          > b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
          > c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self.
          ...
          S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?

          Metta

          Sarah
          =====
        • Robert E
          Hi Sarah. ... There is still a distinction which is the problematic one I think. Yes, ultimately that s all that exists, like atoms and their contents are the
          Message 4 of 27 , May 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Sarah.

            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Rob E,
            >
            > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@> wrote:
            >
            > > No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that:
            > >
            > > a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
            > > b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
            > > c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self.
            > ...
            > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?

            There is still a distinction which is the problematic one I think. Yes, ultimately that's all that exists, like atoms and their contents are the ultimate reality of all objects of science. But in the case of science we can say the chariot appears to be solid, but is really made up of atoms whirling around in empty space. In the case of dhammas, we don't say that what we see as wholes are really a bunch of momentary dhammas arising marked by sanna, etc. to create the sense of a stable whole, but instead it is said that the dhammas exist independently and the seeming larger objects are totally illusory. I think this is the real problem. Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all. The Buddha never said the chariot wasn't real, just that it was made up of infinitely less stable and more discrete parts than appeared. I think it's possible to look at the two aspects of existence - the conventional and the dhammas and see the link between them, rather than a vast separation, and much of the talk in the commentaries acknowledges this connection, from what I've seen [limited though it may be.] I think to say that only dhammas exist and thus conventional objects are wholly nonexistent may be one of the extreme views that the Buddha warned against. To say that the universe is experienced only one dhamma at a time and that we have to understand the nature of this experience with wisdom is one thing - that unwinds the human enterprise and brings it to cessation. To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall. The Buddha says that the physical universe consists of kandhas - true, but not that it doesn't exist as such. I am sure the first view that our experience only takes place one dhamma at a time is justified, but not sure the second that this is the whole of the universe and that there is no physical world other than individual rupas is not too extreme.

            In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case.

            Best,
            Rob E.

            = = = = = = = = = = = =
          • sarah
            Hi Rob E, ... ... S: Remember the suttas in which we read about mirages and conjuring tricks? It is not the conventional objects which are of the nature of
            Message 5 of 27 , May 29, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Rob E,

              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

              > > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?
              ....
              >R:....Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all.
              ...
              S: Remember the suttas in which we read about mirages and conjuring tricks? It is not the conventional objects which are of the nature of hallucinations, but it is the mis-perceiving of realities that does the hallucinating - taking what is not real for being real.

              Here's a good example which was recently quoted in Nina's series:

              >The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 100) states that the four Great Elements are "deceivers":

              "And just as the great creatures known as female spirits (yakkhinii) conceal
              their own fearfulness with a pleasing colour, shape and gesture to deceive
              beings, so too, these elements conceal each their own characteristics and
              function classed as hardness, etc., by means of a pleasing skin colour of
              women's and men's bodies, etc., and pleasing shapes of limbs and pleasing
              gestures of fingers, toes and eyebrows, and they deceive simple people by
              concealing their own functions and characteristics beginning with hardness and
              do not allow their individual essences to be seen. Thus they are great primaries
              (mahaa-bhuuta) in being equal to the great creatures (mahaa-bhuuta), the female
              spirits, since they are deceivers."

              >Realities are not what they appear to be. Because of sa~n~naa, the cetasika
              remembrance that arises with every citta, we remember shape and form and
              immediately we cling to what we believe are things and persons.

              >One may be infatuated by the beauty of men and women, but what one takes for a
              beautiful body are mere ruupa-elements.<
              ****

              >R:... To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall.
              ....
              S: >The Blessed Buddha replied:
              It is, Vaccha, because of neither knowing form, nor feeling, nor perception,
              nor mental construction, nor consciousness, nor the cause of origin of form,
              feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness, nor the cause
              of ceasing of form, feeling, perception, construction, and consciousness,
              nor the way to cease form, feeling, perception, construction, & consciousness
              that these various speculative views, such as: "This Universe is eternal,
              finite etc. " arise in the world! This ignorance, this not seeing, blindness,
              this not understanding, this not fully knowing, this not breaking through,
              this not comprehending, this not penetrating, this not discerning, this not
              discriminating, this not differentiating, this not closely investigating, this
              not directly experiencing and realizing, friend Vaccha, is the cause, and
              is the reason, why those various speculative views arise in this world!<
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/122306

              S: Remember that the Buddha taught the "All" - just the ayatanas meeting together now, just paramattha dhammas.
              ...
              > In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case.
              ....
              S: The Buddha's omniscient wisdom knew about all and any realities attended to.
              This should never be underestimated.

              Metta

              Sarah

              p.s. Off to Thailand early in the morning, so some delay in replies.
              =====
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.