I was asked some time ago to provide a thread where I explain why the DhO does not practice Buddhism.

I actually already did that... but... well... whatever...

Anyways.

It's easily summed up as: The DhO follows AF, AF follows Wrong Views and Practices that are not in accord with the Dhamma, thus the DhO does not practice Buddhism.

Furthermore such views and practices preclude one from being a Stream Enterer, or an Aryan or a "real Buddhist".

Thus there is no Aryan-Dhamma here.

A quick proof is that suttically speaking, sotapannas are only supposed to be capable of taking the Buddha as a teacher, but that is not really the case here.

If you have any questions please ask.

Before a horde of replies come in I thought I'd answer quickly:

Fruition is not mentioned in the Suttas

So called "in seeing just the seen" is really such a minor teaching of the Buddha, probably mentioned only once in one major source

The Progress of Insight is not mentioned in the Suttas

The POI of the commentaries is radically different from the one used here, more related to insight, not phenomenology

Sotapannas are inapable of Wrong Views as Wrong Views lead to hell, sotapannas cannot be born in hell, there are a variety of Wrong Views here

The Unconsciousness event may be demeritorious, but might be related to the Unconscious Devas in the Brahma realm

Models of Enlightenment in the Suttas directly contradict the ones here

Morality plays a prominent role in the Suttas (Wrong View again)

Magick is supported here, Magick is against Sila in the Suttas

Sotapannas can only follow the Buddha

Limited Action Models are supported by the Suttas

The unravelling of the self is done at first path, not fourth

Limited Emotional range models are supported by the suttas

Finally there were many HERETICAL TEACHERS at the time of the Buddha who had similar teachings to the Buddha, many were said to go to hell (Purana Kassapa, Mahavira?) google if interested, similar thing is happening here, possibly

Karma and other mythologies play an important role in the suttas but are discarded here

Vipassana is not really mentioned in the suttas (I know weird right?)

Afterlife exists in suttas, not here

The notion that only an anagami experiences nirodha samapatti is commentarial, not suttic, furthermore the nirodha samapatti of the DhO may not be the nirodha samapatti of the Tipitaka

Anagamis experience no ill will or sensual desire WHATSOEVER, not mostly no sensual desire and ill will with some vestiges of shadows left behind or whatever

Please check out the characteristics:

http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Sotapanna









Anyone honestly fulfill these critieria?

Quick quote:

http://www.edepot.com/budglossary.html

"

Imponderables: (Four Imponderables). Four things that Buddha warned against. One of these was trying to get into Karmic detail and look to find the "results" of volitional actions (Karma). It is enough to just Know and Understand and Intuitively have insight into the Fact that Volitional Action (karma) begets a result (Vipaka). It is even impossible to judge good and bad because that leads to the intellectual trap of duality and it's Dukkha. From the Pali Canon.... "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four?
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas (i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha)...
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana (i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana)....
The results of kamma...
Speculation about (the first moment, purpose, etc., of) the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad and experience vexation."

"

Once I knew a monk who lived in burma, was visiting a temple in the US.

I asked him, 'Are you a buddhist'?

He said 'no. and I don't know any either.'

Dear James,

Do you feel an uncontrollable pull, compelling you to write provocative posts on this forum?
If so, can you try to be more honest as to why that is?

Do you feel strongly about Buddhism? Do you feel strongly about Enlightenment? Do you want to be Enlightened?

Wrong.


Does it? Aren't they?


False conclusion based on flawed logic.

To use your analogy: Hitler was a vegetarian, Hitler was a Nazi thus all vegetarians are Nazis.

Get a grip, James.

You've already made your viewpoint clear on here and you've also been shot down repeatedly by people who know a lot more about Buddhism and the Dhamma than you do. I for one will not be engaging you in any further discussion simply because, based on the way you've conducted yourself on here in the past, you're a troll who's looking for attention.

I suggest you look elsewhere.

Hi m m a,

Let me be fully clear that I don't believe myself to be enlightened according to Theravada tradition,
I'm aware that the Theravada tradition condemns me as an immoral person, just FYI.

Hi yadid,

I'm honestly just bored.

Hi Tommy, they don't know more about the dhamma than me I would wager, anyways I was merely responding to nikolais request.

If you are AF or enlightened as you claim then why continue to act so unenlightened or un-AF towards me.

Revealing eh?

I just realized, you didn't actually respond to any of the CONTENT of my post.

LOL

It still stands, all the arguments and whatever I posted, Tommy basically just insulted me, please ignore him everyone.

Come on Tommy here it is, pure suttic info:



Do you or anyone you know fulfill this criteria, no more cognitive dissonance, no more ignoring it, it's RIGHT HERE, proof.

Do you fulfill it? No, of course not.

=p

Edit: I'll make it larger so that it's more difficult to ignore:

It's from the suttas.

I agree about this.

Changing one's mind is a pretty cool thing!

(It has also been called "raising the bar"...)

Hi James,

People who post such things in Internet forums are usually using this non-personal medium as a means to express things they otherwise would not do in real life.

If this was the DharmaOverground CONFERENCE, I bet you wouldn't be walking up to people, arguing and acting crazy as you post here, because you would be too embarrassed to do so.
So the Internet and this forum in particular seems to be an outlet for your 'dark side'.

How's my analysis?

It seems like you, somewhat systematically, argue with people on the Internet on various forums.
A quick Google search for your nickname (bBoyYen), reveals that you have argued (until you got banned, it seems) on some Satanic forums.
A Google search with the query: bboyyen site:satansarmy.4rumer.net
Reveals quite a bit.. Look deeper.. whats causing this urge to argue with random people on the Internet?

Yes you're correct, I would probably be friendly in person instead. I like it when people like me. =p

As to getting banned on forums, true story, I participate on the Internet quite often.

Interesting.. so why do you prefer to be argumentative on the Internet, as opposed to in person?

I feel like I have points to prove on the internet.

But (weird story), I seem to never meet stupid people in person.

I can relate to your feeling, I also sometimes feel like I have points to prove.

Your weird story is probably related to the fact that the Internet, due to its impersonal nature, creates a bigger potential for projection.
This is evident in the fact that many people seem to be sure that a certain poster is 'posting in anger', 'is a sad geek with no friends', when in fact, the truth is far from that projection.

Dear James,

Your critiques about which dogmas are suttic and which are commentarial are correct and in accordance with standard orthodoxy, though they have all been made before in various contexts and so you are a bit late to the party, if it could be called that.

I am wondering why you have shown up on a forum with a community of people who are daily living the experiment of following techniques and seeing where they actually lead rather than the many forums that would have a greater appreciation for your views that, admittedly, do fit nicely with much standard Buddhist suttic dogma, though do not do as well with solid reality testing.

Do you have any interest in discussing practical things like your actual practice, or the actual experiences of people here who are living the real experiment? If not, I would suggest that you consider participating in a forum that is more aligned with your basic way of viewing things, and there are many good ones to choose from. I personally wouldn't crash a convention of Flat Earthers and decry their dogma as that would just be rude, nor, inversely, were I simply one who can quote dogma that just happens to be partially nonsense, crash the forum of people who are doing strong practice and seeing for themselves.

However, if you wish to discuss real practice, your practice, your retreats, your techniques you practiced, what the results were, and any questions or comments you had about actually practicing something, that would be most appreciated, as that is what this place does best.

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Apologies if I'm a headache causing member of your forum.

Unforunately I have no practical interest in changing myself in any way whatsoever.

The only "practical-esque" thing that I'm currently doing is an ongoing magickal practice (stuff for my personal gain, I'm a member of the Order of Nine Angles), perhaps I'll post something about that.

Troll

I was about to jump (well, step) to James's defence a little. As a newbie to the forum I probably don't yet get the vibe for what is acceptable or not, but based on the stated purpose of this "The Dharma Battleground", I'd have thought that this kind of "stirring the pot" discussion was *exactly* what it was intended for. This is important to me because I myself just initiated a potentially controversial discussion, and I want to make sure I wasn't being an arse in doing so. (My intention was to get help removing a potential obstacle to my own practice, so maybe that's a good enough excuse.)

But James, on further reading, Tommy has a point. In response to Yadid asking why you write as you do, you said:

That sounds a bit lame, no? Then, in a subsequent reply to a question about whether you'd act the same in person you said:

Can you see that reasonable minds could take that to suggest you *may* think the people you are meeting here *are* stupid? I'm not saying you *are* saying that, but it's kinda asking for at least a playful slap about the chops, no? Further on, in response to Daniel you began with:

Was that a genuine apology? I mean, it looks like you believe you are causing a headache, so unless you have a good reason for doing that -- and "I'm honestly just bored doesn't seem, in and of itself, to be a good reason -- why do it? Why cause headaches?
And then again to Dan comes what is probably the clincher:

As with your apology, it's hard to know if you really see this as unfortunate. Regardless, if you're not posting here to facilitate you changing, why *are* you posting here.

To everyone else, on the other hand. One answer from James could simply be, "'Cos it's fun to debate stuff". Is that actually a bad answer -- specifically on *this* sub-forum, "The Dharma Battleground"? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Finally, Tommy, just for grins, I have to take issue with your taking issue with James's logic. With your Nazi example (which, incidentally, almost but not quite falls foul of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) you are accusing him of making an "illicit minor" error. But he doesn't. If the "follows" relation is strict (i.e. if "A follows B" and "B follows C" implies that "A follows C"), then James's syllogism is perfectly valid. For example, if "follows" means "comes sometime after" then the following (excuse the pun) is valid:

2013 follows 2012
2012 follows 2011
therefore
2013 follows 2011

If he's making an error it is because "follows" is *not* strict. But that depends on how "follows" is defined. The structure of his syllogism is not the problem.

I understand your point, you see, it's not a problem to discuss, but the way I see it is: the main reason we should be discussing is to help each other and ourselves to understand better a "truth" and become a better person, to see other's perspectives, question limiting beliefs, broaden our minds, etc.
I see a discussion as bad if it's not with such a goal, instead only aiming to prove someone or something is "right" and the other is "wrong", and most likely wasting the time of everyone reading and writing on it.

So the difference really is whether you are wasting yours and everyone else's time or not, OR you want to help your self and/or others, be by questioning a belief, clarifying something, bringing something new on the table, etc.

From the perspective of Buddhist practice, yes it's a bad answer. A fun activity which breeds ill will is very bad karma.

On the other hand, I hear we don't practice Buddhism here.