Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view?
- Hi James,
Thanks for your good question:
--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote:
> > >J: And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,....
> > > nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
> > > actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no
> > > no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who,
> > > faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
> > > after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
> > > wrong view.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> Could you explain how this is different from the position of: there is
> no Nina, Lodewijk, Sarah, James, Buddha, etc. ?
1a. "There is nothing given" etc - means there are no fruits of giving.
There is a denial of kamma and vipaka, there is no value in developing
kusala. It is a very serious wrong view.
1b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. These namas are
kusala (wholesome), akusala (unwholesome), vipaka (result) and kiriya
(inoperative). Giving (dana) is performed by kusala cittas which result in
kusala vipaka. Instead of there being a denial of kamma and vipaka, the
opposite is stressed by the Buddha.
2a. "no this world, no next world" - is a denial of rebirth in any form.
All is annihilated at the end of this life. Again, there is a denial of
2b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. Rebirth does not
refer to rebirth of people but to rebirth of namas (cittas and cetasikas).
At the end of this life, the last citta (cuti citta or death
consciousness) is succeeded by the first citta (patisandhi citta or
rebirth consciousness) of the next life.
3a. "no mother, no father" - is a denial of any value or fruit of right
conduct towards parents or any harm in wrong conduct.
3b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. The Buddha
stressed the great value as you know in doing whatever is possible for
one's parents. Of course, again in an ultimate sense, what we take for our
parents are again namas and rupas, particular streams of accumulations.
4a. "no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing
rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known &
realized it for themselves." - is a denial of arhants and Buddhas.
4b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. The attainment of
arahantship refers to magga and phala cittas and definitely the Buddha
taught about such attainement. Again, in an ultimate sense, the Buddha
does not/did not exist as discussed at length, but the namas and rupas
referred to as the Buddha definitely did.
["In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to
be found", Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85]
S: I know the "no Nina, Lodewijk, Sarah, James, Buddha, etc." area is a
very difficult one for many to accept. In the end, it comes back to the
present moment now. What is seen? What is heard? What is smelt? What is
tasted? What is touched? And then, what is thought about?
- Hi Jon,
That clarifies it: your age, being elder, and your calcification of
your bones and your muslces ability to flex. This includes your
mind's ability to flex.
That appears to be a good pin set so that bowlers can come along and
knock the pins down in the middle class way. Calcium makes bones
rather brittle and subject to breakage doesn't it?
> > the point of synethesia is that the brain or mind actuallycognizes
> > things using more than a single sense i.e. eye consciousness canand
> > is also used by blind persons that have nevere had sight or soundeight
> > waves reverberating against the body making them a tactile
> > consciousness and not simply the ear consciousness. I am showing,
> > here, that our focus and obsession with identifying each of the
> > consciousnesses is misleading or Miss Leading and inevitablyleads
> > down the path of WRONG VIEW.reverberating
> To take the second example you give above ("sound waves
> against the body making them a tactile consciousness and not simplyby
> the ear consciousness"), this as you correctly say is an experience
> body-consciousness, i.e. of hardness/softness, etc.colette: STOP RIGHT THERE.
So, you admit the the "conciousness" is manufactured or manfiested
by several other "consciousnesses". Now we get into the "initial
contact" of the consciousnesses which construct the FORM to the NAME
in the ALAYA-VIJNANA. Now we're into a new game, no? Well, isn't it
true that the Theravadans require that only their given list of
consciousnesses be recognized, and that the Alaya-Vijnana is in no
terms worthy of the magnioificents of the power of the Theravadan
monks' grasp and hold on to the conscious through the limitation of
"I guess I'm talkin' 'bout love", Trampled Under Foot by Led Zepplin
Lets further your analysis of my RE-TURNING OF THE WHEEL WHETHER
THOSE IN THEIR DRUG INDUCED COMOTOSE ENJOY, LIKE IT OR NOT. Are you
telling me that turning the wheel is a bad thing, while we see in
countless WEstern cultures that bingo, that roulette, that any
spinning wheel is a good and desirous thing <.....>?
You seem to say that the Alaya-Vijnana is only good enough for you
and that you are not a Theravadan holding the tenants <.....>? What are you trying to sell me from your cushy position in Hong
> Now we think of the hardness that is experienced as being the "soundcolette: so it's true that you intend on relying on your tired old
> waves" of the sound that is being heard at the same time.
foundation as a means of subordinating the next group of "believers"
or followers of the Buddhist precepts? <....>
You got me way off today.
I gotta go.
But in fact
> there is no "sound" in the tactile experience, just as there is nodoor.
> hardness in the audible object being experienced through the ear-