Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/25/12 7:36 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/25/12 7:39 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/25/12 7:44 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/25/12 7:56 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/26/12 1:04 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism #1 - 0 12/25/12 8:27 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/26/12 12:56 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Change A. 12/25/12 9:42 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Nikolai . 12/25/12 10:03 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/26/12 1:14 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Nikolai . 12/26/12 6:33 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Change A. 12/26/12 7:30 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Rotten Tomato 12/26/12 8:42 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/26/12 10:24 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/26/12 1:46 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/27/12 8:09 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/27/12 9:13 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/27/12 11:17 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 8:42 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/28/12 9:13 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 10:28 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 11:47 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 11:52 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 12:01 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 12:06 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 12:33 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 12:58 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 1:07 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 1:26 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/28/12 2:05 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/28/12 3:07 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/29/12 1:02 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/29/12 11:14 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/29/12 9:21 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/30/12 1:55 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Sam S 1/6/13 2:27 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 1/6/13 2:52 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 12/28/12 9:05 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/5/13 8:47 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/7/13 12:24 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/5/13 8:53 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/5/13 10:09 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Change A. 1/5/13 10:11 PM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/6/13 1:06 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism Shashank Dixit 1/8/13 1:49 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism An Eternal Now 12/29/12 12:54 AM
RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism lama carrot top 12/27/12 10:42 PM
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:36 PM

Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Hi all

I am cataloguing here my recent conversation with Richard about his take
on Buddhism/Buddhist masters et al.
My intent is to let people know about Richard's take on Buddhism - this will prevent
yet another fellow like me to waste time trying to know what is what.
(I have made a few comments here and there..couldnt help emoticon )

Here is what all he has to say :-

1). I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with accomplished
*sectarian* Buddhist teachers -- and especially not any such
teachers of sukkhavipassaka -- as the buddhaghosavacana is
too far removed from the buddhavacana for any meaningful
discussion.

2). I do *not* point out dukkha[1] and the cessation of dukkha.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:39 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:37 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
3). I would not recommend "locating the sincerity/naivete
point below the navel" at all, ever, unless you are
100 percent certain -- beyond all doubt -- that all of those
highly-prized and much-exalted states of being[2] are, in fact,
disassociated delusions/massive hallucinations as it seems to be far too dangerous

4). Yes, and not only just four instances of irritation (which were
quite mild, by the way, and only momentary) but several brief
flashes of fear [3]

5). Shashank : The word 'emotion' again creates confusion. For instance , you
can experience wonder and delight in a pce and going by the definition
of wonder , even wonder is considered as an emotion - unless you
think it is not an emotion.

Richard : no reply

(Shashank's comments : As Richard experiences wonder , so contrary to his claim , maybe Richard is still emotional ? I think
Arhant's do not have any sense of wonder, curiosity so maybe they are the ones who have genuinely extirpated all emotions ?)
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:44 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:40 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
6). Shashank : I think a better/closer translation of what you call as the
package of instinctual passions is what is termed as the
craving/aversion package in Buddhism - both are instinctual
push/pull mechanisms manifesting in the positive and
negative sense. In the 4 noble truths, craving(along with
'aversion' but grouped generally as craving alone) is considered
as the root of all the problems , just as you have also considered
the instinctual passions as the root of all problems.
Both passions(of actualism) and craving(of Buddhism) are blind instinctual push/pull
mechanisms.

Richard : no reply given

7). Shashank :

I can give two examples to explain :-

a). Lets say a person is seeing the world with a glass spectacle
which has a filthy red film over it. He sees the world as red in color.
Now he removes this red-film and sees the world clearly but
he is only describing the pure transparent glass film that is
left rather than what he is seeing. It seems this is what the Buddhists
are also doing - they are only talking about that transparent
glass film that is left (the state of mind - nibbana) , rather than what they
are seeing(the actual world of senses).

b). As an actualist , one will say 'this brilliant, scintillating actual world'
yet , a Buddhist will say 'the luminous mind'.

The point I am trying to make from the above two examples is this -
The whole Buddhist path and practise makes one lay stress about
the experience of the mind rather than what is the world like..


Richard : no reply given
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:56 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:40 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
8). Shashank : I have sometimes wondered if the 'selfless' world of
Buddhism is the actual world of actualism ?

Richard : no reply given
(This is kind of obvious as he has no Buddhist training and so he cannot know what is selfless/emptiness , but the irony is that he claims to have lived the final state(aka nibbana)
for several years, without *any* Buddhist training whatsover ! )

9). Richard : To properly conduct an exhaustive examination
of the Pali Canon would not only take years but would require
an in-depth knowledge of all the Pali words, and their many and
varied grammatical nuances, as well (as the regular printed or
online translations are all flawed, to some degree or another,
partly because of translator bias and also because of corrupt
dictionaries due to Pali being a dead language

(Shashank's comments : and yet , Richard does not want to meet a single Buddhist teacher to know about their direct experience.
All theory and no actual field-testing eh ? )
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 1:04 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 7:41 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
10). Richard : As there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent you from
practising the actualism method (enjoying and appreciating
being alive, being here, each moment again), whilst you are
typing those words/whilst you are reading these words, that
is a go-sit-on-a-cushion-and-withdraw-from-physicality kind
of cop-out.

(Shashank's comments : ..and what kind of cop outs would want to sail away on a private boat named MSV Actualis, eh ? )

11). Shashank : I reached a horrible dead-end when I could just not appreciate this moment
of being alive(and also consider the universe to be benevolent)
when down with a fever or cold or my somewhat recurring lower
back-pain. It is for this reason that I went back to Buddhistic practises
wherein I would just observe the 3 characteristics
of all phenomena.

Richard : no reply given

(Shashank's comments : maybe Actualism is only meant for those who enjoy a very healthy and robust physical constitution most of the times ? )

Regards
Shashank

-------------------------------------
[1] - dukkha as taught by Gautam Buddha
[2] - nibbana
[3] - all this happened while Richard was living day in, day out in nibbana
thumbnail
#1 - 0, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 8:27 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 8:27 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/8/10 Recent Posts
i think you are overcomplicating this whole thing massively


just relax

if you really want to be "Actually free" just stop to smell the roses and never start back up again.


-k
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 12:56 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 8:35 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Dont worry, I am already very relaxed..like I said, my intent is to help people not waste time
knowing Richard's take on Buddhism..I wasted considerable amount of time in
all this and I wish not others to do the same.

PS : Let me know how the roses smell when you have a cold emoticon
Change A, modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 9:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 9:14 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Excellent points, Shashank. I hope this helps someone from wasting their time (this has been a few years for some and for others, up to a decade or more).

Not replying to key points is Richard's most important trick and he will lay too much emphasis on some trivial point in trying to confuse the reader. To a new reader, he makes it sound as if he knows a lot when in fact he might have picked one word and interpreted it according to his own whims and fancies.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 10:03 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/25/12 10:03 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Change A.:
Excellent points, Shashank. I hope this helps someone from wasting their time (this has been a few years for some and for others, up to a decade or more).

Not replying to key points is Richard's most important trick and he will lay too much emphasis on some trivial point in trying to confuse the reader. To a new reader, he makes it sound as if he knows a lot when in fact he might have picked one word and interpreted it according to his own whims and fancies.


Perhaps you guys should start a blog to do this so as to avoidmaking the dho a base for such disdain.

Nick
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 1:14 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 1:00 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Not replying to key points is Richard's most important trick and he will lay too much emphasis on some trivial point in trying to confuse the reader. To a new reader, he makes it sound as if he knows a lot when in fact he might have picked one word and interpreted it according to his own whims and fancies.


Yes , this is what I kind of found out as well.

@ Nick

I wanted to blog it initially but sooner or later a lot of people might get confused with the whole Buddhism/Actualism
thing and I just wish others don't waste time like I did. A lot of Buddhist practitioners will come here and
thats why I catalogued it here.

Also , since this forum is about dharma practise and the goal of dharma is end of dukkha - which is not
the goal of Actualism as made clear by Richard himself - so I wonder why would an Actualism sub-category
be maintained in a dharma forum.

That said , if you think this fits the Battleground sub-category , then it can be moved there as well.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 1:46 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 1:46 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

12). Richard : Having said that -- and apart from there being several instances
in that canon of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan being irritated enough
to (for example) abruptly withdraw from communal interaction
and retreat into solitude in the forest

(Shashank's comments : Then why would you do the below thing when you met the spiritually enlightened teacher :-

"I decide to move on to my appointment ... which is actually with a cup of specially blended and drip-filtered coffee ... plus a well-earned cigarette in the quietude and cosiness of my own living room."

From the article :- http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aconversationwithaspiritualteacher.htm)
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 6:33 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 6:26 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Shashank Dixit:
Not replying to key points is Richard's most important trick and he will lay too much emphasis on some trivial point in trying to confuse the reader. To a new reader, he makes it sound as if he knows a lot when in fact he might have picked one word and interpreted it according to his own whims and fancies.


Yes , this is what I kind of found out as well.

@ Nick

I wanted to blog it initially but sooner or later a lot of people might get confused with the whole Buddhism/Actualism
thing and I just wish others don't waste time like I did. A lot of Buddhist practitioners will come here and
thats why I catalogued it here.

Also , since this forum is about dharma practise and the goal of dharma is end of dukkha - which is not
the goal of Actualism as made clear by Richard himself - so I wonder why would an Actualism sub-category
be maintained in a dharma forum.

That said , if you think this fits the Battleground sub-category , then it can be moved there as well.


I think if one is not inspired to put whatever practice into practice within the context that such a practice is freely given, that it is a huge waste of time to fuss and fight over what he said, she said and/or the perceived or misperceived negatives of such a practice, for oneself and for all others who unfortunately get sucked into participating in such time wasting back and forths. One's time be best used to find what works for oneself and then dedicate 100% of oneself to such a practice. The often practiced practice of fussing over negative opinions of another practice is a huge waste of time in my experience.

But this isn't a moderator posting. It's just my opinion and experience. You do what you see fit. Carry on with this thread's intention.

Those who dedicate an awful lot of time to constantly relating to a practice they can't see fit to simply practice whole heartedly and would rather relate negatively to it, if they'd dedicated the same effort and time to a practice that delivers positive results, they would be in much better places by now. If it aint working, drop it and do something else. The gaps that the negativitiy creates and the time spent fuming and fabricating unpleasant mental overlays really are a hindrance to becoming a happier human being sooner rather than later.

My 2cents

Nick
Change A, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 7:30 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 7:30 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
But this isn't a moderator posting. It's just my opinion and experience. You do what you see fit. Carry on with this thread's intention.


Thank you for letting us know about your opinion and experience. I do the same when I post, I post according to my opinion and experience. Next time if you see my post as along the lines of he said/she said, politics, bad vibes, disdain, feel free to move it to Dharma Battleground category without telling me how you perceive it to be.
Rotten Tomato, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 8:42 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 8:42 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 22 Join Date: 7/24/12 Recent Posts
richard has put up the conversation at his site.

This is the link
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 10:24 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/26/12 10:24 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Rotten Tomato:
richard has put up the conversation at his site.

This is the link


Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..infact several
things I've said have been totally removed.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 8:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 7:34 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

RICHARD: G’day , Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/ hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them), was it really necessary to resort to lying?
Vis.:
[Respondent]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added].

(Shashank's comments : Its quite the opposite - it is the AFT that is lying - Here are the things that were removed :-

1. whatever I posted about craving(of Buddhism) as the parallel to instinctual passions(of Actualism) has been totally removed

2. whatever I posted about wonder as an emotion has been totally removed

3. the examples I posted in relation to the 'dirty red film' analogy have been removed

4. selfless world of Buddhism is the actual world of Actualism has been removed
( PS : maybe this is the discovery of the millennia ? )

..maybe more...but I can't recollect)
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 9:13 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 9:12 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Shashank Dixit:
Addendum

RICHARD: G’day , Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/ hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them), was it really necessary to resort to lying?
Vis.:
[Respondent]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added].

(Shashank's comments : Its quite the opposite - it is the AFT that is lying - Here are the things that were removed :-

1. whatever I posted about craving(of Buddhism) as the parallel to instinctual passions(of Actualism) has been totally removed

2. whatever I posted about wonder as an emotion has been totally removed

3. the examples I posted in relation to the 'dirty red film' analogy have been removed

4. selfless world of Buddhism is the actual world of Actualism has been removed
( PS : maybe this is the discovery of the millennia ? )

..maybe more...but I can't recollect)


Hey Shashank,

Do you realize that the AFT archived all of Richard's emails faithfully without removing anything? Those things you said were removed were never in his replies in the first place, they were only in yours (which are not archived). It isn't that the AFT removed those things from Richard's replies, it was Richard who never included them in his replies in the first place. The net effect is the same - parts of your replies do not show up on the AFT site archive - but why not be accurate about how that happened?

- Claudiu
lama carrot top, modified 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 10:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 10:42 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 49 Join Date: 6/12/12 Recent Posts
Excellent posts Shashank! Very informative.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 11:17 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/27/12 10:58 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Shashank Dixit:
Addendum

RICHARD: G’day , Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/ hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them), was it really necessary to resort to lying?
Vis.:
[Respondent]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added].

(Shashank's comments : Its quite the opposite - it is the AFT that is lying - Here are the things that were removed :-

1. whatever I posted about craving(of Buddhism) as the parallel to instinctual passions(of Actualism) has been totally removed

2. whatever I posted about wonder as an emotion has been totally removed

3. the examples I posted in relation to the 'dirty red film' analogy have been removed

4. selfless world of Buddhism is the actual world of Actualism has been removed
( PS : maybe this is the discovery of the millennia ? )

..maybe more...but I can't recollect)


Hey Shashank,

Do you realize that the AFT archived all of Richard's emails faithfully without removing anything? Those things you said were removed were never in his replies in the first place, they were only in yours (which are not archived). It isn't that the AFT removed those things from Richard's replies, it was Richard who never included them in his replies in the first place. The net effect is the same - parts of your replies do not show up on the AFT site archive - but why not be accurate about how that happened?

- Claudiu


Not including some text that I had written is the same as removing some text I had written - whether Richard replied to it
or not. It is somewhat like this :-

You commit a murder and a charity on the same day and then, when somebody asks you what have you done today,
you reply that you have done charity today..you are telling the truth(about charity)but conveniently hiding the truth
(about the murder)

Its alright if he did not reply to everything I have asked..all I am saying is that they have not included everything was spoken
(which in this case is what I've spoken)
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 8:42 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 8:42 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Shashank Dixit:
Its alright if he did not reply to everything I have asked..all I am saying is that they have not included everything was spoken
(which in this case is what I've spoken)

Yea that is what I figured. If you want to get that across to Richard, though, then say it accurately, otherwise he will take you up on the fact that technically nothing was removed from his emails in the process of archiving them. Just trying to mediate the conversation a bit...
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 9:13 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 9:12 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Yea that is what I figured. If you want to get that across to Richard, though, then say it accurately, otherwise he will take you up on the fact that technically nothing was removed from his emails in the process of archiving them. Just trying to mediate the conversation a bit...


What I've found strange is that at some places Richard wants to refer to the original Pali literature(Budhdhavacana and others) as a sort of final arbiter in any discussion and on the other hand , he says that trying to figure out stuff from the Pali literature is a sort of exercise in futility because Pali is a dead language (Please check point 9 above).

Really Claudiu , don't you think a few talks with some good
good Buddhist teachers would have helped cleared this all up pretty easily ? But again , its a different
matter if he has no interest in all this.

Quite frankly , the impression that I am getting from all this is that Richard is somehow concerned that
his take on Buddhism might be proved wrong perhaps..I might be wrong but thats just how it
is appearing to me right now.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 10:28 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 10:28 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Shashank Dixit:
What I've found strange is that at some places Richard wants to refer to the original Pali literature(Budhdhavacana and others) as a sort of final arbiter in any discussion and on the other hand , he says that trying to figure out stuff from the Pali literature is a sort of exercise in futility because Pali is a dead language (Please check point 9 above).

Really Claudiu , don't you think a few talks with some good
good Buddhist teachers would have helped cleared this all up pretty easily ? But again , its a different
matter if he has no interest in all this.

Quite frankly , the impression that I am getting from all this is that Richard is somehow concerned that
his take on Buddhism might be proved wrong perhaps..I might be wrong but thats just how it
is appearing to me right now.

Ha, I think he's as concerned that his take on Buddhism might be proven wrong as he is that actual freedom isn't what he says it is... that is, not concerned at all.

What might explain his stance here is that he spent an inordinately large amount of time going through the Pali Canon recently:
Richard:
[...] because of what has taken place in the ‘Hardcore/ Pragmatic Dharma’ circles this last 2-3 years I have spent a very rewarding 5 and ½ months of this last year poring over the original Pali text, for eight-ten hours a day, finding out why the translators translate the way they do so as to be able to demonstrate, via this original text, that an actual freedom from the human condition is not even remotely the same.
[February 11, 2012]
I spoke with him about this while in Australia. Essentially he found that the original Pali text matched his experience of enlightenment quite well, and that it was an amazing piece of work (I'm paraphrasing here) as not only did it actually lay out a step-by-step guide on how to get enlightened but it has also been so well-preserved across these millennia.

So it's not that it's an exercise in futility to figure out the Pali literature because he has already figured out a part of it after having spent months doing so. I guess he was questioning how *you* knew that there wasn't a single instance in the recorded history that says that the Buddha had mild irritation post-awakening, given that you hadn't conducted such a survey nor had you looked at the original Pali text as some of the translations are inaccurate nor are you or were you at any point enlightened to be able to draw from your experience to get at just what it is the canon was talking about.

About talking to Buddhist teachers, he said he wouldn't want to talk to sectarian ones/ones that teach sukkhavipassaka, because they are not teaching faithfully according to the Pali Canon, so they wouldn't have much to talk about. Maybe he'd be willing to talk to someone like Acariya Maha Boowa, who claims to be an Arahant and does not seem to have taken any of the divinity out of Buddhism. Compare some of Maha Boowa's writing in Arahattamagga with some of Richard's writing. It's a bit hard to find long quotes of Richard's experience of himself when Enlightened, because he seems to always talk about it in terms of what he discovered was wrong with it (so it lacks the conviction of someone who has full faith in it), but there are hints here and there. All emphases are mine.
---
Maha Boowa:
The khandhas are not the Arahant; the Arahant is not the khandhas. Absolutely and without exception, the khandhas are conventional realities. By contrast, that pure nature is completely free of all vestiges of conventional reality—one hundred percent. So the two do not, cannot mix. They are mutually exclusive.

Richard:
I called this ASC an ‘Absolute Freedom’ because there was definitely a metaphysical Absolute in all this – as distinct from the temporal and spatial and material – that was ever-present [...] [link]

---
Maha Boowa:
Consequently, my teaching emanates from pure, unadulterated compassion.
[...]
What do people search for nowadays? I searched, until I nearly died, to find the Supreme Dhamma that I now teach to my disciples with a loving, compassionate heart.
[...]
Let every family in the country criticize me, I have a quarrel with no one. I teach people purely out of loving kindness.
[...]
My attempts to assist you stem entirely from loving compassion.

Richard:
, and this State Of Being immediately imbued me with Love Agapé [metta] and Universal Compassion [karuna] for all sentient beings. [link]

---
Maha Boowa:
Normally, the “knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesa) within it

Richard:
In my eighth year I turned my attention to the ‘Timeless and Spaceless’ aspect of being enlightened, for although that was my inner experience of myself, [...] [link]

---
Maha Boowa:
The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies.

Richard:
I also had the sure ‘knowledge’ that I was ‘Deathless’ ... or as they say in the eastern tradition: I was ‘Unborn and Undying’. [link]

---
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 11:47 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 11:40 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Many Theravadins do not agree with the eternalism of Ajahn Maha Boowa or recognize him to be an arahant. I think his claims about an unchanging citta is more of an Advaita notion and has no place in the pali suttas. Venerable Dhammanando once started a thread about this in a Buddhist forum.

Nirvana/Nibbana, in the pali suttas, is a negation. i.e. it is not spoken as some 'unborn radiant mind' or some sort of a metaphysical 'Self', but as the elimination of the three poisons of craving, aggression and delusion.

Jnana/Geoff says it very well: “Firstly, while the translation of asaṃskṛta as “the unconditioned” is fairly common, it’s a rather poor translation that all too easily leads to reification. The term asaṃskṛta refers to a negation of conditioned factors, and the meaning is better conveyed by “not-conditioned.” Secondly, for Sautrāntika commentators, and many mahāyānika commentators as well, an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) is a non-implicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha), i.e. a negation that doesn’t imply the presence of some other entity, and therefore nirvāṇa simply refers to a cessation that terminates the defilements and fetters that are abandoned by the correct practice of the noble path. It doesn’t refer to an entity or state that is substantially existent (dravyasat).”
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 11:52 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 11:51 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Many Theravadins do not agree with the eternalism of Ajahn Maha Boowa or recognize him to be an arahant. I think his claims about an unchanging citta is more of an Advaita notion and has no place in the pali suttas. Venerable Dhammanando once started a thread about this in a Buddhist forum.

Nirvana/Nibbana, in the pali suttas, is a negation. i.e. it is not spoken as some 'unborn radiant mind' or some sort of a metaphysical 'Self', but as the elimination of the three poisons of craving, aggression and delusion.

What of the mentions of the "Deathless" and attaining the Deathless in the pali suttas, then?

And, by the way, this is why Richard does not want to talk with Theravadins - because he does not think they understanding what the enlightenment of the Buddha & the Arahats is.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:01 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 11:56 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
Many Theravadins do not agree with the eternalism of Ajahn Maha Boowa or recognize him to be an arahant. I think his claims about an unchanging citta is more of an Advaita notion and has no place in the pali suttas. Venerable Dhammanando once started a thread about this in a Buddhist forum.

Nirvana/Nibbana, in the pali suttas, is a negation. i.e. it is not spoken as some 'unborn radiant mind' or some sort of a metaphysical 'Self', but as the elimination of the three poisons of craving, aggression and delusion.

What of the mentions of the "Deathless" and attaining the Deathless in the pali suttas, then?

And, by the way, this is why Richard does not want to talk with Theravadins - because he does not think they understanding what the enlightenment of the Buddha & the Arahats is.
While I also may not agree with every fine point of Theravada, I also do not agree with Richard's understanding of Buddhist nirvana. IMO he has a gross misunderstanding of it.

As Geoff points out, rather than 'The Unconditioned' it is best translated as 'not-conditioned', likewise there is no 'The Deathless' but 'not-death' - the difference being, there is no such thing as an entity being 'deathless', but it is the negation and elimination of the factors (defilements, afflictions, fetters) leading to samsaric existence of birth and death. It is likened to a fire that ceases to burn when the oil/factors giving rise to afflictive births (and deaths) has subsided. The fire blowing out is an analogy given by Buddha himself as an analogy to Nirvana.

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.

And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.

And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.

And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.

And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.

And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.

And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.

And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.

And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.

And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.

And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.

And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.

And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.

And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.

And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.

And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.

And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.

And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.

And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.

And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.

And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.

And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.

And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.

And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.

And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.

And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.

And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.

And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.

And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.

And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.

And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.

And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:06 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:05 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
And by the way, his very first discourse that led to the stream entry of one of the five monks, is already very explicit about what Nirvana is:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.


"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:33 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:32 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
As Geoff points out, rather than 'The Unconditioned' it is best translated as 'not-conditioned', likewise there is no 'The Deathless' but 'not-death' - the difference being, there is no such thing as an entity being 'deathless', but it is the negation and elimination of the factors (defilements, afflictions, fetters) leading to samsaric existence of birth and death. It is likened to a fire that ceases to burn when the oil/factors giving rise to afflictive births (and deaths) has subsided. The fire blowing out is an analogy given by Buddha himself as an analogy to Nirvana.

It seems Geoff would disagree with you, as he has written as an introduction to the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

Thanissaro Bhikku:
The account then illustrates the Buddha's own noble search and his later teaching career in the terms introduced by the lesson: the search for the "unborn, aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding." In particular, all the events mentioned in the account revolve around the issue of the Deathless: the discovery of the Deathless, the teaching of the Deathless, and the Buddha's success in helping others to attain the Deathless.


It sounds like it is the "unexcelled rest from the yoke" (Unbinding) that is deathless (along with unborn, agingless, etc). So, what does it mean for the release from samsaric existence to be unborn and undying? Is that not what Maha Boowa and Richard both say they experienced?

If you bring up the not-death vs. deathless point again, can you explain it in context of this phrase? Not sure how "not-death" would fit in there.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:58 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 12:42 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
As Geoff points out, rather than 'The Unconditioned' it is best translated as 'not-conditioned', likewise there is no 'The Deathless' but 'not-death' - the difference being, there is no such thing as an entity being 'deathless', but it is the negation and elimination of the factors (defilements, afflictions, fetters) leading to samsaric existence of birth and death. It is likened to a fire that ceases to burn when the oil/factors giving rise to afflictive births (and deaths) has subsided. The fire blowing out is an analogy given by Buddha himself as an analogy to Nirvana.

It seems Geoff would disagree with you, as he has written as an introduction to the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

Thanissaro Bhikku:
The account then illustrates the Buddha's own noble search and his later teaching career in the terms introduced by the lesson: the search for the "unborn, aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding." In particular, all the events mentioned in the account revolve around the issue of the Deathless: the discovery of the Deathless, the teaching of the Deathless, and the Buddha's success in helping others to attain the Deathless.


It sounds like it is the "unexcelled rest from the yoke" (Unbinding) that is deathless (along with unborn, agingless, etc). So, what does it mean for the release from samsaric existence to be unborn and undying? Is that not what Maha Boowa and Richard both say they experienced?

If you bring up the not-death vs. deathless point again, can you explain it in context of this phrase? Not sure how "not-death" would fit in there.
We're talking about different Geoffs. The Geoff I talk about is a lay person who frequents Dharmawheel and Dhammawheel, and is the creator of this excellent site: http://measurelessmind.ca/ which I highly recommended in my blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddhas-teachings.html

I find him (online Geoff) a scholarly and highly experienced Buddhist practitioner with very deep knowledge of the Pali canon, Theravadin tradition, as well as Mahayana and Vajrayana.

I do not agree with Ven Thanissaro on a number of issues but shall not discuss them here.

'Release' must not be misunderstood as dissociation of some unaffected self from conditioned experience, but rather as the letting go of grasping. Imagine carrying a very very heavy load on your shoulders for ten miles and then finally dropping it, putting it down, you may feel a sense of 'release'. In the Buddhist case, it is rather similar but the heavy burden causing stress is our grasping, attaching, conceiving [of a 'I am'], craving. If there were dualistic dissociation, that would imply grasping - grasping onto a Self that could dissociate from the not-self.

'Release' should be understood in terms of letting go, but if you cling to a Self, or even if you do not call it a 'self' but you conceive of there to be a metaphysical entity such as 'a deathless radiant mind'* which is no different from Self-View really, that in my experience is not conducive to letting go. Instead it leads to grasping, it leads to becoming, it leads to samsaric birth and death. So IMO, Ajahn Maha Boowa has grasped to a changeless citta. Any kind of grasping is not Buddhadharma. The Buddha teaches that even Nirvana or unbinding is not to be grasped:

(regarding the darahant) "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

And in his very first discourse: "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

*This is not a denial of mind as in mindstreams, but a rejection of self-view, the difference of which is clearly explained by Ven Hui Feng:

"In short:

"self" = "atman" / "pudgala" / "purisa" / etc.
--> permanent, blissful, autonomous entity, totally unaffected by any conditioned phenomena

"mind" = "citta" / "manas" / "vijnana" / etc.
--> stream of momentarily arising and ceasing states of consciousness, thus not an entity, each of which is conditioned by sense organ, sense object and preceding mental states

Neither are material.

That's a brief overview, lot's of things to nit pick at, but otherwise it'll require a 1000 page monograph to make everyone happy.

You'll need to study up on "dependent origination" (pratitya-samutpada) to get into any depth to answer your questions.

~~ Huifeng"
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 1:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 1:05 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
And here is how the online Geoff explained 'death-free' wonderfully:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddhas-teachings.html

This is noble liberation which is the elimination of craving and clinging. MN 106 Āneñjasappāya Sutta:

This is death-free, namely, the liberation of mind through not clinging.

......

Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’

Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 1:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 1:22 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Oh, sorry for mistaking the Geoffs.

An Eternal Now:
And here is how the online Geoff explained 'death-free' wonderfully:

Hmm, you will have to explain how he is saying something different than what I was saying.

Geoff:
When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

It sounds like he is saying the experience of having abandoned all traces of "I-making" an "mine-making" is "not-born", "not-become", "not-made", "endless", "indestructible", and "death-free". Now, it's obvious that the physical body dies anyway, so what could he possibly be referring to when he says "death-free"? There is no self to die, fine, but that means whatever is left - the conscious ongoing experience of one who has abandoned all traces of "I-making" and "mine-making" (for one is certainly still conscious, albeit in a very different way) - cannot die, doesn't it?

The sutta that was quoted as well:

"A sage at peace... has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die?"
vs.
"I also had the sure ‘knowledge’ that I was ‘Deathless’ ... or as they say in the eastern tradition: I was ‘Unborn and Undying’."

What exactly is the distinction that I am missing? Why is it that when the sutta says the sage is not born and cannot die, that is Buddhism, yet when Richard (and Maha Boowa) say the same, it is not Buddhism?
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 2:05 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 1:40 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Hmm, you will have to explain how he is saying something different than what I was saying.
The quotes you quoted implied that there is an entity that is Deathless.

While the death-free of Buddha is strictly in terms of negation - i.e. freedom from death does not imply that there is a Self that is unborn and undying. It is very different.
It sounds like he is saying the experience of having abandoned all traces of "I-making" an "mine-making" is "not-born", "not-become", "not-made", "endless", "indestructible", and "death-free". Now, it's obvious that the physical body dies anyway, so what could he possibly be referring to when he says "death-free"? There is no self to die, fine, but that means whatever is left - the conscious ongoing experience of one who has abandoned all traces of "I-making" and "mine-making" (for one is certainly still conscious, albeit in a very different way) - cannot die, doesn't it?
No, there is no 'something that cannot die', any notion of there being a 'something that cannot die' is precisely the eternalist view and self-view that is being negated.

The absence of death is not the same as the presence of something that will exist forever and never die.

As a moderator of the dhammawheel forum tiltbillings puts it: There is no "deathless." That is a bad translation leading to an objectification/reification of the idea of awakening. With awakening, there is no more rebirth, one is free from death. (31 words.)

Geoff also wrote, One has to be careful with such descriptions which may seem to be pointing to some sort of truly existent "unconditioned ground." Nibbāna is the extinguishment of the mental outflows (āsavā). The liberated mind is measureless (appamāṇa). This is not a "state of oneness with all of existence." It's an absence of identification (anattatā). It's non-indicative (anidassana), unestablished (appatiṭṭha), and not-dependent (anissita). None of these adjectives entail any sort of metaphysical "ground of being" or "unconditioned absolute." They are all negations. An arahant has simply "gone out."

Like a flame that has "gone out", nothing whatsoever could be conceived with regards to it, definitely not some deathless remainder or absolute.

The Hindus, akin to Ajahn Maha Boowa, asserts that a liberated person resides in/as an eternal, deathless consciousness. This view does not accord with the pali suttas view of liberation.
What exactly is the distinction that I am missing? Why is it that when the sutta says the sage is not born and cannot die, that is Buddhism, yet when Richard (and Maha Boowa) say the same, it is not Buddhism?

There is no truly existent Self or unconditioned absolute that is 'birthless, deathless, timeless' etc etc.

Nirvana is the elimination, letting go, relinquishment, release, of all cravings, identity, conceiving, ignorance, grasping. It is the elimination of factors that lead to birth and death.

It is freedom from all establishments. When no 'self' is established in consciousness or anywhere in the skandhas or even in nirvana [cessation of craving], there is also no conceiving of some 'I' to be born or to die.

This freedom is the releasing of grasping and not some ultimately and eternally existing entity. This released mind is the mind of arahants, not the mind of sentient beings, not some 'unborn mind' that has been waiting there forever.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 3:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 2:58 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
No, there is no 'something that cannot die', any notion of there being a 'something that cannot die' is precisely the eternalist view and self-view that is being negated.
[...]
Geoff also wrote, One has to be careful with such descriptions which may seem to be pointing to some sort of truly existent "unconditioned ground." Nibbāna is the extinguishment of the mental outflows (āsavā). The liberated mind is measureless (appamāṇa). This is not a "state of oneness with all of existence." It's an absence of identification (anattatā). It's non-indicative (anidassana), unestablished (appatiṭṭha), and not-dependent (anissita). None of these adjectives entail any sort of metaphysical "ground of being" or "unconditioned absolute." They are all negations. An arahant has simply "gone out."
[...]
There is no truly existent Self or unconditioned absolute that is 'birthless, deathless, timeless' etc etc.

Nirvana is the elimination, letting go, relinquishment, release, of all cravings, identity, conceiving, ignorance, grasping. It is the elimination of factors that lead to birth and death.

It is freedom from all establishments. When no 'self' is established in consciousness or anywhere in the skandhas or even in nirvana [cessation of craving], there is also no conceiving of some 'I' to be born or to die.

Hmm, but then what is Nibanna Sutta (3) talking about, for example:
Buddha:
There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

That sounds like Buddha was making a positive assertion that there is a not-born, not-conditioned, etc., and without there being one, there would be no escape from what is born, etc. Similarly for Nibanna Sutta (1):
Buddha:
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

It sounds like there is a positive assertion of there being something (vs. not being something) where there is no material existence, no consciousness, etc, and that that is what the end of suffering is - there being only that.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 9:05 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/28/12 9:04 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
I guess he was questioning how *you* knew that there wasn't a single instance in the recorded history that says that the Buddha had mild irritation post-awakening, given that you hadn't conducted such a survey nor had you looked at the original Pali text as some of the translations are inaccurate nor are you or were you at any point enlightened to be able to draw from your experience to get at just what it is the canon was talking about.


As ill-will is cut-off completely at third path , so I never suspected about the Buddha being irritated..infact it will be interesting
to see such a sutta.

About talking to Buddhist teachers, he said he wouldn't want to talk to sectarian ones/ones that teach sukkhavipassaka, because they are not teaching faithfully according to the Pali Canon, so they wouldn't have much to talk about.


again , on one hand he doubts the validity of the Pali canon and on the other hand he wants to talk to only those who are
faithful to the Pali canon

Compare some of Maha Boowa's writing in Arahattamagga with some of Richard's writing.


I have always doubted Maha Boowa's claims to Arahantship as he had cried remembering his moment of Arhantship,
though its possible I do not understand those states of mind.
This is actually similar to Justine's crying and I wonder now if Richard can also cry ? ( barring physical reasons like dust in the eye or crying out of laughter or onions etc)
btw an interrsting thing I recall as far as I remember is that Maha Boowa also could not form an image in his mind. Infact
I think this ability drops much before Arahantship.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 1:02 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 12:29 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
No, there is no 'something that cannot die', any notion of there being a 'something that cannot die' is precisely the eternalist view and self-view that is being negated.
[...]
Geoff also wrote, One has to be careful with such descriptions which may seem to be pointing to some sort of truly existent "unconditioned ground." Nibbāna is the extinguishment of the mental outflows (āsavā). The liberated mind is measureless (appamāṇa). This is not a "state of oneness with all of existence." It's an absence of identification (anattatā). It's non-indicative (anidassana), unestablished (appatiṭṭha), and not-dependent (anissita). None of these adjectives entail any sort of metaphysical "ground of being" or "unconditioned absolute." They are all negations. An arahant has simply "gone out."
[...]
There is no truly existent Self or unconditioned absolute that is 'birthless, deathless, timeless' etc etc.

Nirvana is the elimination, letting go, relinquishment, release, of all cravings, identity, conceiving, ignorance, grasping. It is the elimination of factors that lead to birth and death.

It is freedom from all establishments. When no 'self' is established in consciousness or anywhere in the skandhas or even in nirvana [cessation of craving], there is also no conceiving of some 'I' to be born or to die.

Hmm, but then what is Nibanna Sutta (3) talking about, for example:
Buddha:
There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

That sounds like Buddha was making a positive assertion that there is a not-born, not-conditioned, etc., and without there being one, there would be no escape from what is born, etc. Similarly for Nibanna Sutta (1):
Buddha:
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

It sounds like there is a positive assertion of there being something (vs. not being something) where there is no material existence, no consciousness, etc, and that that is what the end of suffering is - there being only that.
Of course there is a not-born, etc. It sounds to you that it is asserting something positive due to misunderstanding what Nirvana means. Buddha couldn't have been more clear in so many instances including right from his very first discourse in which the truth of cessation (nirvana) is very clearly, very precisely, defined as the elimination of craving.

Even 'not-born' is simply a negation of birth, etc. All the 'nots' of Nirvana are in terms of extinguishment, cessation, elimination, in terms of letting go, in terms of relinquishment. Not in terms of a positive 'something'. As long as a 'something' is being established as truly existent, one has fallen into the fault of false views - view of self and view of eternalism.

i.e. when a flame is burning, you can say 'there is a freedom from flame, otherwise a flame cannot be extinguished'. It does not mean 'when there is flame, run to the other house which is eternally free from flame'. It actually means that freedom from flame, extinguishing the flame, is possible, and Nirvana is likened to the flame being extinguished. Flame here meaning the defilements.

Geoff: Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.

And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.

And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.

And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.

And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.

And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.

And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.

And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.

And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.

And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.

And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.

And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.

And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.

And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.

And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.

And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.

And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.

And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.

And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.

And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.

And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.

And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.

And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.

And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.

And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.

And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.

And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.

And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.

And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.

And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.

And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.

And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 12:54 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 12:54 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

So it's not that it's an exercise in futility to figure out the Pali literature because he has already figured out a part of it after having spent months doing so. I guess he was questioning how *you* knew that there wasn't a single instance in the recorded history that says that the Buddha had mild irritation post-awakening, given that you hadn't conducted such a survey nor had you looked at the original Pali text as some of the translations are inaccurate nor are you or were you at any point enlightened to be able to draw from your experience to get at just what it is the canon was talking about.
---
In the suttas, it is stated:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.

In an alternative translation it is stated,

http://buddhasutra.com/files/madhupindika.htm

"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of complication assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the underlying tendencies to passion, to irritation, to views, to uncertainty, to conceit, to passion for becoming, & to ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.


It is pretty clear that from the suttas perspective, arahants do not have any mental resistance/irritation.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 11:14 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 11:14 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Of course there is a not-born, etc. It sounds to you that it is asserting something positive due to misunderstanding what Nirvana means.

So what did the Buddha mean when he said "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned." To shorten the phrase: "There is a not-born." Further, given the other Nibanna Sutta talks about "There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air [...] Not fixed, not movable, it has no support.", it seems like this "not-born" that Buddha stated exists (via him having said "There is a not-born") has nothing to do with material existence and further is neither created nor destroyed.

It's clear that before an Arahant becomes enlightened, he does not experience the end of dukkha. So obviously, the experience of enlightenment is born - has a beginning - namely, it comes when the Arahant becomes enlightened. Clearly then the Buddha was not talking about the experience of being enlightened, but something else. And it sounds like he is saying it would be impossible to become enlightened - to end dukkha - without there existing this not-born that he goes into great detail to describe.

Obviously, this is something you cannot grasp to to become enlightened - I think if you cling to Nibanna you become merely an Anagami - but now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a sutta that denies the existence of this not-born not-conditioned, etc, it's always only been commentaries or people expounding on how they understand the suttas.

An Eternal Now:
Buddha couldn't have been more clear in so many instances including right from his very first discourse in which the truth of cessation (nirvana) is very clearly, very precisely, defined as the elimination of craving.

Okay, and in the sutta I quoted, nibanna is very clearly, very precisely, defined as "that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air", etc. It's not uncommon for one sutta to not include all different ways of describing the same thing. For example, the Ariyapariyesana Sutta does not refer to the four noble truths, yet Thanissaro Bhikku takes an opportunity in the introduction to say "the lack of reference to the four noble truths does not indicate that they were not actually involved in the Awakening or the first sermon."

An Eternal Now:
Even 'not-born' is simply a negation of birth, etc. All the 'nots' of Nirvana are in terms of extinguishment, cessation, elimination, in terms of letting go, in terms of relinquishment. Not in terms of a positive 'something'. As long as a 'something' is being established as truly existent, one has fallen into the fault of false views - view of self and view of eternalism.

It's not that it 'exists'. The Buddha was a bit tricky with this one (Khema Sutta):

'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply.

Obviously the Buddha (the Tathagata) died, in that his physical body died. Why then would he go through all the trouble to say that his existence or non- doesn't apply after death? Maybe he is talking about some sort of non-physical existence? Because physically, the answer is obvious - his body died.

An Eternal Now:
i.e. when a flame is burning, you can say 'there is a freedom from flame, otherwise a flame cannot be extinguished'. It does not mean 'when there is flame, run to the other house which is eternally free from flame'. It actually means that freedom from flame, extinguishing the flame, is possible, and Nirvana is likened to the flame being extinguished. Flame here meaning the defilements.

It's more like saying "there is that which is not a flame, otherwise there would be no escape from a flame." Here you could simply move to somewhere where there is not a flame to escape from it. Likewise, Buddha was saying there is that which is not-born, not of the earth, no sun, no moon, etc., so to escape from dukkha, all you have to do is move from where there is birth, earth, sun, moon, etc., to where there is no birth, earth, moon, sun, etc. Clearly this is not a physical movement as they still existed as bodies when they became enlightened.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 9:21 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/29/12 9:21 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Likewise, Buddha was saying there is that which is not-born, not of the earth, no sun, no moon, etc., so to escape from dukkha, all you have to do is move from where there is birth, earth, sun, moon, etc., to where there is no birth, earth, moon, sun, etc.


Yes , and that is nowhere but in the brain - nibbana is an experience/state of mind..just as Richard's experience of infinity is an experience/state of mind..none of the 5 senses are telling Richard about infinity.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 12/30/12 1:55 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 12/30/12 4:23 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

So what did the Buddha mean when he said "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned." To shorten the phrase: "There is a not-born." Further, given the other Nibanna Sutta talks about "There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air [...] Not fixed, not movable, it has no support.", it seems like this "not-born" that Buddha stated exists (via him having said "There is a not-born") has nothing to do with material existence and further is neither created nor destroyed.
You and Richard have completely mixed up the Hindu moksha with Buddhist nirvana.

As I explained, Buddhist nirvana (extinguishment) is not "The Unborn" but not-born. It is not "The Deathless" but death-free. It is not an immortal entity existing without beginning into forever and a day. It is rather the freedom from, the cessation of, the relinquishment of, suffering.

Birth, death, afflictions are all part of the 12 links of dependent origination. With the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of all the links leading to any planes of rebirth, whether it be this world or another world.

There is a freedom from smoke, a not-hot, an absence from light. And what is that freedom? It is precisely this: the extinguishing of the flame on the candle. It is not the case that there is an eternally existing something that is not hot, etc. It is that the extinguishing of flame - precisely that - is freedom from heat, precisely that is the not hot, not bright, etc. being spoken about. If there were no freedom from heat, then we would be stuck with heat, but instead we discover that all we have to do is to put out the candle flame and there we have it - the freedom from heat, or light, or smoke.

There is a not-born, not-conditioned, death-free. And what is that? Precisely this: the extinguishing of craving, aggression, delusion, identity, grasping. It is not the case that there is immortally existing entity that is deathless. Rather it is that there is a base which can be attained or achieved conventionally speaking, and the attaining of this base IS freedom from birth and death, from the samsaric cycles of rebirth and suffering. And what is that base that entails freedom from samsara? Not the base of infinite consciousness, nor the base of nothingness or neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nor is it even the temporary base of the cessation of feelings and perceptions. Rather, that base is precisely and only this: the extinguishing of craving, aggression and delusion. If there were no such base, where there is complete cessation of the twelve afflictive links or the nidas, then we will surely be stuck in birth, ageing, sickness and death forever and ever. But fortunately there is this freedom from ageing, birth, sickness and so on. And yes, it may be called a "base" or "element" (but actually as later explained it should be translated as 'principle' rather than 'element') but it simply means this: the cessation of defilements driving afflictive births.

If nirvana could be some immortal entity, then it could not have been defined time and time again, in plain and simple words, to be: the elimination of craving, aversion and delusion. Time and time again the Buddha has reiterated that he has only ever taught about suffering and the end of suffering, which he clearly explained is the elimination of craving. This statement by Buddha couldn't have been clearer: And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

In addition, the Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant), with the residue itself being a reference to "his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain". The Nibbana element without residue remaining is that which “all that is felt, not being delighted, will become cool right here” (Iti 44). The common interpretation is that the first Nibbana element is attained when the Arahant/Noble One is still alive, and the latter comes in the passing away of the Noble One. However, as Geoff mentions, there is an alternative interpretation:

To paraphrase Ven. Ñāṇananda, it's not that an arahant gets half of nibbāna upon awakening, and the other half when s/he dies. Upon awakening they have already "gone out," they are "cool," and they have reached "the end." Even parinibbāna can be used to refer to a living arahant.

The dhamma isn't about some sort of thanatos desire to attain completion in the grave. It's about realizing "the end" here and now.

It's clear that before an Arahant becomes enlightened, he does not experience the end of dukkha. So obviously, the experience of enlightenment is born - has a beginning - namely, it comes when the Arahant becomes enlightened.
The knowledge and insight that led to disenchantment and dispassion was born, dispassion being born, that led to the knowledge of the destruction of all defilements. The knowledge of the destruction of defilements was born, however the destruction of defilements was not born - the extinguishing/cessation of craving is not conditioned, not born, etc. Upon the extinguishing of craving, there is a knowledge 'the craving is extinguished'. Just like a person will definitely have the knowledge when the pain in your left foot has suddenly subsided. This knowledge is being born, the extinguishing of craving however is not born, not conditioned, etc, for it is the cessation of affliction, and not the birth of anything. Again, the not-born is not 'the unborn', the death-free is not 'the deathless' - the not-born is akin to the no-smoke of extinguishing a fire. In extinguishing the craving i.e. nirvana, there is an absence of conditions or afflictive manifestations. It is a negation, not a positive something.

It could be said that the cognition of nirvana has a beginning, as Geoff puts it: "the object-basis of supramundane consciousness isn't some sort of "Unconditioned Realm" existing somewhere outside of time and space. Rather, it is a cognition which perceives the absence of specific fetters."

End of dukkha/Nirvana itself is not an experience since nirvana is 'cessation' and not a 'thing', however, that fact of cessation can be known, and that knowledge is an experience. And that supramundane consciousness or knowledge is not something ultimately existing like some sort of Brahman, for that supramundane consciousness/knowledge having arisen, also do fall away and are impermanent.
Clearly then the Buddha was not talking about the experience of being enlightened, but something else.
Being enlightened is not a word in the Buddha's dictionary. He never said 'I'm enlightened'. He said 'I'm awake'. Awakening, or knowledge and vision of things as they are, is being born, and that knowledge results in the cessation of ignorance and the whole chain/links of afflictive dependent origination. Awakening and nirvana go hand in hand - there is no awakening without some form of termination [the number of fetters terminated depends on which path you achieved], there is no termination of fetters without knowledge and vision.

Thus right besides awakening is nirvana, which is just this: the elimination of craving, aggression and delusion. But it is not the nirvana you had in mind. There is no such nirvana in the suttas as being some immortal metaphysical existent.
And it sounds like he is saying it would be impossible to become enlightened - to end dukkha - without there existing this not-born that he goes into great detail to describe.
Again, not 'the unborn' but 'not born'. And what is 'not born' 'death free' etc? The Buddha defined it very clearly and precisely: the extinguishing of the three poisons.
Obviously, this is something you cannot grasp to to become enlightened - I think if you cling to Nibanna you become merely an Anagami - but now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a sutta that denies the existence of this not-born not-conditioned, etc, it's always only been commentaries or people expounding on how they understand the suttas.
Neither suttas nor commentaries nor I deny not-born, not-conditioned, or nirvana. However, the assertion of Nirvana as some ultimate metaphysical existence has no place at all in Buddha's teachings. Not-born is not 'the unborn'. Death-free is not 'the deathless'. Freedom, release, liberation, is what is being taught. That is what Buddhists aim to achieve. Of course, if there were no such freedom, then our whole spiritual path would be for nothing. The Buddha assures us that there is indeed such a freedom.

Okay, and in the sutta I quoted, nibanna is very clearly, very precisely, defined as "that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air", etc. It's not uncommon for one sutta to not include all different ways of describing the same thing. For example, the Ariyapariyesana Sutta does not refer to the four noble truths, yet Thanissaro Bhikku takes an opportunity in the introduction to say "the lack of reference to the four noble truths does not indicate that they were not actually involved in the Awakening or the first sermon."
Nibbana is a synonym for extinguishment. It is about cessation. The "base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air" is simply the extinction of the defilements that led to the twelve links of dependent origination. The Buddha said this: "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling in space to reach the end of the world where there is no birth, aging and death. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world. The world, the beginning of the world, the end of the world, and the way leading to the end of the world is all within this fathom-long body, with its perception & conception." -AN 4.45

Imo, there can be no 'end of the world' without actualizing the realization of twofold emptiness into real-time liberation. As for what exactly the 'end of the world' is like, please refer to Geoff's (Ñāṇa) post - 2nd post in this page: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=320

I understand that words like "a base" can sound like there is an immortal something but as I shall explain it does not mean anything like that. Words like "a base" used to describe nirvana does not imply an ultimately existing entity that is immortal etc any more than the base of infinite space, the base of infinite consciousness are "ultimately existing entity, etc" - as we know those formless jhanic bases are all impermanent and conditioned. The base of nirvana is not impermanent or conditioned but not because it is "The Unconditioned Deathless Thing" but precisely because nirvana/extinguishment is not conditioned, it is freedom from conditions. Therefore, describing it as a "base" or "principle" that is free or absent of the twelve afflictive links does not imply there is an ultimately existing immortal something. Whenever you think of nirvana, just think of extinguishing of a flame. Its a great analogy given by Buddha himself.

You should read this:

http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/432-Nibbana?s=1a638d713a5f8115199abbc50cf3d736

Dear Dania,

I feel a bit awkward criticizing Ven. Bodhi. I consider him as one of my main teachers of the Dhamma. For a long time I have been reading his writings and much of my comprehension of the Dhamma is due to his excellent translations and commentaries. I have a great sense of gratitude towards him and much respect. At the same time, I suppose there comes a time when a student has gained enough understanding to stand on his own two legs. So perhaps in this case it would not be wrong to present my own understanding of this issue.

It seems to me that the main mistake Ven. Bodhi makes here is to give a direct answer to a question that is based on a misunderstanding. There is an exchange between Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahākotthita in the Anguttara Nikaya (AN4:173) which makes this very point:


(1) "Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact [that is, the death of an arahant], is there anything else?"
"Do not say so, friend."
(2) "With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, is there nothing else?"
"Do not say so, friend."

(1) "Friend, if one says: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is something else,' one proliferates about that which is without proliferation [i.e. final Nibbāna]. (2) If one says: 'Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is nothing else,' one proliferates about that which is without proliferation.

So these very questions are just proliferations; they are misconceived. The Dhamma is not about attaining or not attaining an existing reality. It’s about ending suffering. The reason why anyone is concerned about what happens when the arahant dies is because of their sense of self. The sense of self makes us perceive the death of an arahant either as annihilation or some sort of eternal existence. Once the false sense of self is removed, one no longer perceives the death of an arahant in either of these ways, and the concern about what happens to them after death just falls away. I feel Ven. Bodhi should have pointed this out rather than try to answer the question. That would have been much more useful for the inquirer’s understanding of the Dhamma.

Having said this, I also do not find Ven. Bodhi’s arguments persuasive. Before I consider Ven. Bodhi’s individual points, I should point out a general danger in arguing that Nibbāna is “an existing reality”. It is impossible to conceive of a reality beyond the six senses, at least for non-ariyans. For this reason, any idea of Nibbāna as an existing reality will by default be understood in terms of the eternal continuation of one or more of the five khandhas. The result of this will often be attachment to a refined form of the five khandhas, in particular refined states of samādhi, and taking this as Nibbāna. So the best thing to do is to put this question aside and instead practice the path until one penetrates non-self. Only when one sees this will one understand that the very question was misconceived.

Now let me try to reply to some of Ven. Bodhi's points.


The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things.


The full quote that Ven. Bodhi is referring to reads: “To whatever extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned, dispassion is declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing of pride, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the termination of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.” (AN4:34) Here, as is common in the suttas, Nibbāna is used synonymously with nirodha. Nirodha means “cessation”, the very opposite of a “reality existing in itself”. To fit in with this, Nibbāna must simply refer to “extinguishment”, which is its literal meaning, rather than to an existing reality.


However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions.


“Extinguishment” is unconditioned because it is not dependent on conditions. That is, it is “free from the conditioned”, which is probably a more appropriate translation of asankhata than “unconditiooned”. Once Nibbāna is achieved, it is irreversible, and thus asankhata.


The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere.


Āyatana often does refer to a “realm, plane or sphere”, but not always. For example at AN9:46, saññāvedayitanirodha, “the cessation of perception and feeling” (which is the cessation of the mind), is called an āyatana. Here the word āyatana simply seems to point to the fact that such cessation is possible. In this context āyatana cannot refer to a “realm”; rather it refers to the ending of all realms. Again, when Nibbāna is called an āyatana (which actually is very rare; the most celebrated occurrence being Ud 8:1), it is probably used in the same way as nirodhāyatana, and it is perhaps best translated as “the principle of extinguishment“.


The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'dhatu,' an element, the 'deathless element' (amata-dhatu).


The word dhātu, too, is used in a variety of contexts, and the translation “element” is often not suitable. These contexts include saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu (“the dhātu of the cessation of perception and feeling”), avijjādhātu (“the dhātu of ignorance”), nirodhadhātu (“the dhātu of cessation”) and then there is the passage jātipaccayā bhikkhave jarāmaranaṃ uppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitā va sā dhātu (“monks, from the condition of birth, there is old age and death; whether Tathāgatas arise or not, that dhātu persists”) (SN12:20). In all these cases “principle” might be the most suitable translation of dhātu. Given this wide usage of the word dhātu, it is not given that nibbānadhātu must refer to something existing. Rather, “the principle of extinguishment” might again be a suitable translation.


He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body”.


In my understanding of the sutta idiom, this expression (“experienced with the body”; kāyena phusati) means “direct experience”, i.e. in contrast to inferential understanding. Even the attainment of full cessation (saññāvedayitanirodha) is said to be experienced “with the body”, that is, “directly” (AN4:87). In this case, presumably, the meaning is that you experience the process of entering and emerging from cessation. The meaning of directly experiencing the amatadhātu, “the death-free principle”, should probably be understood in the same way.


The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' (pada), as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or ‘accutapada’, the imperishable state.


In the main Nikāyas, this expression only occurs in verse, once in the Dhammapada and once in the Theragāthā. It is very difficult to draw any conclusion on the basis of such rare usage, but I would suggest that pada here is used like dhātu is used above, and that it therefore should be understood in the same way.


Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality.

Again, there is also nirodha-sacca, which is the third noble truth, which is Nibbāna.

In sum, Nibbāna is very closely related to nirodha, and they are frequently used as synonyms. There is little indication that they should be understood as referring to different realities. On the contrary, when they are respectively translated as “extinguishment” and “cessation”, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they must be referring to the same thing.

I think one of the main reasons people tend to see Nibbāna as a “state” is that most translations into English leave Nibbāna untranslated. I believe this is a mistake. The word Nibbāna in itself is meaningless to English speakers, and thus they will tend to read almost anything into it, in particular the idea of an existing “something”. Once you translate Nibbāna with “extinguishment”, it becomes much more difficult to read inappropriate ideas into it. Nobody, as far I know, understands nirodha, “cessation”, as some kind of “state”. In the same way, if we read “extinguishment” rather than Nibbāna in the English translations, I believe we would be much less likely to regard it as a “state”.

With metta.
Obviously the Buddha (the Tathagata) died, in that his physical body died. Why then would he go through all the trouble to say that his existence or non- doesn't apply after death? Maybe he is talking about some sort of non-physical existence? Because physically, the answer is obvious - his body died.
No that is wrong.

The reason that the Buddha negated the four extremes (existence, non-e, both e and non-e, neither e nor non-e) is very very clearly stated and explained by himself:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...


In other words: there has never been a Tathagata to begin with! There has never been a real Tathagata, a real self, anywhere. Tathagata is a mere convention, a linguistic convention, for communication, it does not represent some reality.

If there were no self to begin with, how could there be death or a self that annihilates into non-existence? As Geoff stated earlier, Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth.

And if there were no existing self to begin with, how could there be an existing self after death?

And as Nagarjuna paraphrases the Buddha:

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”

And the answer is clear cut: There isn't! Tathagata is a mere convention, a mere word for an assemblage! There has never been a real self. And this is a crucial insight for attaining to stream entry, once returner, non returner, and arahant. Without such knowledge there can be no liberation. Without such knowledge, one would have grasped onto a self-view.

As the Vajira Sutta states:

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."



As Chandrakirti states:

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

And Padmasambhava states:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
It's more like saying "there is that which is not a flame, otherwise there would be no escape from a flame." Here you could simply move to somewhere where there is not a flame to escape from it. Likewise, Buddha was saying there is that which is not-born, not of the earth, no sun, no moon, etc., so to escape from dukkha, all you have to do is move from where there is birth, earth, sun, moon, etc., to where there is no birth, earth, moon, sun, etc. Clearly this is not a physical movement as they still existed as bodies when they became enlightened.

No, that understanding is without basis in the scriptures. Nirvana is merely the extinguishing of passion, aggression and delusion, and having extinguished this, the result of craving - which is the entire mass of dukkha, ceases as well.

The entire Buddhist path is summed up in the four noble truths.



.............

Edit: more wall of text to make this a record breaking longest DhO post:

http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm

But nowhere in the suttas do we get this sort of etymology and in­terpretation. On the other hand it is obvious that the suttas use the word Nibbàna in the sense of `extinguishing' or `extinc­tion'. In fact this is the sense that brings out the true essence of the Dhamma.

For instance the Ratanasutta, which is so often chanted as a paritta, says that the Arahants go out like a lamp: Nibbanti dhãrà yathàyaü padãpo.[16] "Those wise ones get extin­guished even like this lamp."

The simile of a lamp getting extinguished is also found in the Dhàtu­vibhaïgasutta of the Majjhima Nikàya.[17] Sometimes it is the fig­ure of a torch going out: Pajjotass'eva nibbànaü, vi­mokho cetaso ahu, "the mind's release was like the extinguishing of a torch."[18]

The simile of the extinction of a fire is very often brought in as an illustration of Nibbàna and in the Aggivacchagottasutta of the Maj­jhima Nikàya we find the Buddha presenting it as a sus­tained simile, giving it a deeper philosophical dimension.[19] Now when a fire burns, it does so with the help of firewood. When a fire is burning, if some­one were to ask us: "What is burning?" - what shall we say as a re­ply? Is it the wood that is burning or the fire that is burning? The truth of the matter is that the wood burns because of the fire and the fire burns because of the wood. So it seems we already have here a case of relatedness of this to that, idappaccayatà. This itself shows that there is a very deep significance in the fire simile.

Nibbàna as a term for the ultimate aim of this Dhamma is equally significant because of its allu­sion to the going out of a fire. In the Asaïkhatasaüyutta of the Saüyutta Nikàya as many as thirty-three terms are listed to denote this ultimate aim.[20] But out of all these epi­thets, Nibbàna became the most widely used, probably because of its significant allusion to the fire. The fire simile holds the answer to many questions relating to the ulti­mate goal.

The wandering ascetic Vacchagotta, as well as many others, ac­cused the Buddha of teaching a doctrine of annihilation: Sato sat­tassa ucchedaü vinàsaü vibhavaü pa¤¤àpeti.[21] Their accusa­tion was that the Buddha proclaims the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of a being that is existent. And the Buddha answered them fairly and squarely with the fire simile.

"Now if a fire is burning in front of you dependent on grass and twigs as fuel, you would know that it is burning dependently and not independently, that there is no fire in the abstract. And when the fire goes out, with the exhaustion of that fuel, you would know that it has gone out because the conditions for its existence are no more."

As a sidelight to the depth of this argument it may be men­tioned that the Pàli word upàdàna used in such contexts has the sense of both `fuel' as well as `grasping', and in fact, fuel is some­thing that the fire grasps for its burning. Upàdànapaccayà bhavo, "dependent on grasping is existence".[22] These are two very im­por­tant links in the doctrine of dependent arising, pañicca sam­uppàda.

The eternalists, overcome by the craving for existence, thought that there is some permanent essence in existence as a reality. But what had the Buddha to say about existence? He said that what is true for the fire is true for existence as well. That is to say that exis­tence is dependent on grasping. So long as there is a grasping, there is an existence. As we saw above, the firewood is called upàdàna be­cause it catches fire. The fire catches hold of the wood, and the wood catches hold of the fire. And so we call it firewood. This is a case of a relation of this to that, idappaccayatà. Now it is the same with what is called `exis­tence', which is not an absolute reality.

Even in the Vedic period there was the dilemma between `be­ing' and `non-being'. They won­dered whether being came out of non-being, or non-being came out of being. Katham asataþ sat jàyeta, "How could being come out of non-being?"[23] In the face of this di­lemma regarding the first be­ginnings, they were some­times forced to conclude that there was neither non-being nor being at the start, nàsadàsãt no sadàsãt tadànãm.[24] Or else in the confusion they would sometimes leave the matter unsolved, say­ing that perhaps only the creator knew about it.

All this shows what a lot of confusion these two words sat and asat, being and non-being, had created for the philosophers. It was only the Buddha who presented a perfect solution, after a complete reappraisal of the whole problem of existence. He pointed out that existence is a fire kept up by the fuel of grasp­ing, so much so that, when grasping ceases, existence ceases as well.

In fact the fire simile holds the answer to the tetralemma in­cluded among the ten unexplained points very often found men­tioned in the suttas. It concerns the state of the Tathàgata after death, whether he exists, does not exist, both or neither. The presumption of the ques­tioner is that one or the other of these four must be and could be an­swered in the affirmative.

The Buddha solves or dissolves this presumptuous tetra­lemma by bringing in the fire simile. He points out that when a fire goes out with the exhaustion of the fuel, it is absurd to ask in which direction the fire has gone. All that one can say about it, is that the fire has gone out: Nibbuto tveva saïkhaü gacchati, "it comes to be reckoned as `gone out'."[25]

It is just a reckoning, an idiom, a worldly usage, which is not to be taken too literally. So this illustration through the fire sim­ile drives home to the worldling the absurdity of his presumptu­ous tetra­lemma of the Tathàgata.

In the Upasãvasutta of the Pàràyaõavagga of the Sutta Nipàta we find the lines:

Accã yathà vàtavegena khitto,

atthaü paleti na upeti saïkhaü,

"Like the flame thrown out by the force of the wind

Reaches its end, it cannot be reckoned."[26]

Here the reckoning is to be understood in terms of the four proposi­tions of the tetralemma. Such reckonings are based on a total mis­con­ception of the phe­nomenon of fire.

It seems that the deeper connotations of the word Nibbàna in the context of pañicca samuppàda were not fully appreciated by the com­mentators. And that is why they went in search of a new etymol­ogy. They were too shy of the implications of the word `extinction'. Proba­bly to avoid the charge of nihilism they felt compelled to rein­terpret certain key passages on Nibbàna. They con­ceived Nibbàna as something existing out there in its own right. They would not say where, but sometimes they would even say that it is everywhere. With an undue grammatical em­phasis they would say that it is on coming to that Nibbàna that lust and other defilements are aban­doned: Nibbànaü àgamma ràgàdayo khãõàti ekameva nibbànaü ràgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo ti vuccati.[27]

...
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:46 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

Richard : Now in order for those 'several things I've said' to have even possibly been
'totally removed' before being 'edited and pasted' into the website's archives, they
do have to have been there in those posts of mine, at the 'Yahoo Groups' forum,
in the first place. Hence my 'was it really necessary to resort to lying' query

(Shashank's comment's : I never said that the AFT has removed what Richard has said..I
had said that the AFT has removed several things that I have said.
I'm actually surprised how Richard cannot understand such a
simple thing when he can know the size of the universe !)
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/7/13 12:24 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:49 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

Richard : More to the point, what my co-respondent has done/is doing is quite nasty.
Vis.: 1. He falsely asserted guile (‘see how conveniently the AFT ...’)
2. He falsely attributed deceit (‘... has edited and pasted’).
3. He falsely ascribed profiting (‘... to it’s advantage’).
4. He falsely asserted pelsy (‘shallowness indeed runs deep!’).
5. He falsely ascribed culpability (‘precisely for these reasons’).
6. He falsely attached malfunction (‘... Actualism is going to fail’).
7. He falsely appended suspicion (‘this has laid a serious doubt’).
8. He falsely attributed miscreation (‘the validity of the claims’).
9. He falsely asserted malice (‘more war-like than peace-like’).

(Shashank's comments : Here is a word of the day for you(and I had a good long laugh writing
this) :- English Language Lecturer.
Notice how Richard has used all words started with alphabet "a"...on 9 counts he could find only
verbs starting with "a"..what could be the reason for this ? )
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:53 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:53 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

Richard : In other words, what happened to his clearly expressed interest in ‘knowing the answer’
to that ‘very good question’ another had asked?
Vis.:[Shashank]: ‘A very good question imho and
I’m also interested in knowing the answer to this’

(Shashank's comments : Ofcourse I've made my answer clear to you already..I'll get onto the whole Actualism thingy
as soon as I see widespread success..until then I'm afraid I'll consider you severely deluded)
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 10:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 8:54 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Addendum

Richard : That ‘sail away on a private boat’ comment is, of course, totally at odds with what was unambiguously advertised:
Vis.: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/8190 Richard to the List at Large, 13 December 2009

(Shashank's comments : Further , in that very advertised article Richard says :- "I just happen to particularly like the boating life-style."

Then why on earth can't monks have a certain peaceful lifestyle emoticon

oh and when you are older with a failing sensory system , one of these peaceful monks might be there to help you :-

http://www.brelief.org/reports/report-59.htm )
Change A, modified 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 10:11 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/5/13 10:11 PM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
I'm wondering as to how you could practice Actualism for that long given given that you can now easily see how Richard operates? I guess it might be that one gets hit on the head only when Richard starts to converse with someone personally, not when somebody reads Richard conversing with someone else.

It is still somewhat perplexing to me as I have seen way more intelligent people than myself to have kept at Actualism longer than me.
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 1:06 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 12:47 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Change A.:
I'm wondering as to how you could practice Actualism for that long given given that you can now easily see how Richard operates? I guess it might be that one gets hit on the head only when Richard starts to converse with someone personally, not when somebody reads Richard conversing with someone else.

It is still somewhat perplexing to me as I have seen way more intelligent people than myself to have kept at Actualism longer than me.


I got into Actualism because I thought its a much quicker way to reach nibbana..also , a thing that discouraged me
in Buddhism is the fact that none of the monks are allowed to reveal their personal attainments to lay people.

I think the reason why a lot of intelligent people get into it is because the AFT tends to record everything as if
the other party is clearly at fault and so people think of trying it until when some of them realize the manner of
speaking that Richard uses and then one understands the importance of the good ol mindful Right Speech emoticon

But imho the supreme mistake that Richard has done is not how he communicates but to claim that
this universe is infinite and eternal..The Buddha correctly put it into the category of unanswerables.
Sam S, modified 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 2:27 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 2:21 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 24 Join Date: 7/6/12 Recent Posts
So AEN, would you say that when an Arahat dies, it is equivalent to Nirodha Samapatti/cessation of perception and feeling? In other words, is the final destination of an arahat equivalent to insentience (like a plant except non-returning)?

It seems like you are veering quite heavily into nihilism with your posts.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 2:52 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 2:52 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Sam S:
So AEN, would you say that when an Arahat dies, it is equivalent to Nirodha Samapatti/cessation of perception and feeling? In other words, is the final destination of an arahat equivalent to insentience (like a plant except non-returning)?
Yes, so it would seem. The Mahayana teachings would later say that the arahants will be roused from their cessation to continue their Bodhisattva path. So, there are some interpretations on that.

By the way Nirodha Samapatti is not exactly the same: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

"In the case of a monk who has died & passed away, his bodily fabrication has ceased & subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased & subsided, mental fabrication has ceased & subsided, his life force is totally ended, his heat is dissipated, and his faculties are shut down. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrication has ceased & subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased & subsided, mental fabrication has ceased & subsided, his life force is not ended, his heat is not dissipated, and his faculties are bright & clear. This is the difference between a monk who has died & passed away and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."[2]


Lastly, as Bhikkhu Brahmali states:

"I think this is a very important point. It is inevitable that anyone who still has a view of self, sakkāyadiṭṭhi, will regard nibbāna as either annihilation or eternal existence. The problem here is the view of self, not the nature of nibbāna. Once the view of self is removed, the whole question is besides the point; more precisely, it is just papañca, proliferation.

Our interest in the nature of nibbāna stems from our view of personal existence. If there is no self, there is nothing worth “saving”, and thus even if everything just ends there is no problem. Whether there is something or nothing is therefore besides the point. But certainly, the ending of all things (note “end”, not “annihilation”) can only be good thing and is nothing to be concerned about.

With metta."
thumbnail
Shashank Dixit, modified 9 Years ago at 1/8/13 1:49 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/8/13 1:45 AM

RE: Actualism's further takes on Buddhism

Posts: 282 Join Date: 9/11/10 Recent Posts
Richard:
Golly, I am even too dumb to realise that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan was really suffusing, pervading every direction with an ‘intent to help others and reduce suffering’, as per the Brahma-Vihāra, and not radiating all-permeating/ boundless (appamāṇa) compassion for all sentient beings (as does the venerated Mr. Tenzin Gyatso early each morning, for example, according to his 1991 ‘Freedom in Exile’ autobiography) such as to result, perchance, in profound heart-release (ceto-vimutti) or destruction of the intoxications of the heart.
If I might also ask? Was he, then, also suffusing, pervading every direction with an ... um ... an intent of a pure, pre-eminent, unalloyed, all-permeating/ boundless mettā as well?

(Shashank's comments :
The Buddha has mentioned several times that Brahmaviharas are also transient phenomena and had made it
clear that they are not enough. Here Thanissaro Bhikku explains much clearly with references from sutta
that non-fashioning is beyond brahmaviharas and equanimity :-

Brahmaviharas are not enough)