How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Umm...

 

7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

 

 

8. or does not exist after death,

 

 

9. or both exists and does not exist after death,

 

 

10. neither exists nor does not exist after death

This doesn't negate reincarnation....anyway back to the:

 

You say that things are impermanent, in fact that there are no "things." But then you say it is not continuous, there is only change!

 

What is the experience of "just" change? Is it by any chance continuous?????

[Lucky7Strikes]

All of those are thoughts.

 

To put it simply once again, thoughts project permanence onto that which has only impermanence.

Again, not necessarily so. I can have a thought of a cup, or a duck and know very well these things are impermanent and one day die or decay...

[thuscomeone]

This doesn't negate reincarnation....anyway back to the:

 

You say that things are impermanent, in fact that there are no "things." But then you say it is not continuous, there is only change!

 

What is the experience of "just" change? Is it by any chance continuous?????

You're right. It doesn't negate reincarnation. You said reincarnation is not one of the questions he refused to answer. It clearly is.

 

No, it is not continuous, except that one has the illusion that it is if one has a concept of "impermanence" that they cling to.

 

Impermanence isn't pointing to any things. It is a process.

[thuscomeone]

Again, not necessarily so. I can have a thought of a cup, or a duck and know very well these things are impermanent and one day die or decay...

In that case, you are still proposing that there are things. What you just typed is a thought; therefore it proposes things. Any thought proposes things.

 

There are no changing things, only the process of change.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Mandrake]

You're right. It doesn't negate reincarnation. You said reincarnation is not one of the questions he refused to answer. It clearly is.

 

 

Shakyamuni discusses and answers rebirth in many suttas - The Kutuhalasala Sutta, the Vipaka Sutta, the Ittha Sutta, the Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta - to name some examples.

 

 

Mandrake

[Lucky7Strikes]

You're right. It doesn't negate reincarnation. You said reincarnation is not one of the questions he refused to answer. It clearly is.

The pali canon is laden with references to reincarnation. Samsara is often described as cycle of rebirth. The 12 dependent origination is how birth is originated from delusion, etc.

[Lucky7Strikes]

In that case, you are still proposing that there are things. What you just typed is a thought; therefore it proposes things. Any thought proposes things.

 

There are no changing things, only the process of change.

And is process without things continuous?????

[thuscomeone]

[thuscomeone]

And is process without things continuous?????

No. It is the opposite of continuity.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. It is the opposite of continuity.

What's that?

 

Has the universe stopped...

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

You continue to confuse the ultimate and conventional. I am speaking purely conventionally here. Thought ultimately has no continuous nature since it is impermanent.

 

Interpreting impermanence as evidence for discontinuity is too extreme. It's an erroneous view that doesn't reflect the true state of affairs.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

 

From the Sabbasava Sutta

 

Again, I don't want to get into a debate about this. Like I said, it is the Pali canon's issue, not mine.

You're missing the whole point of this discourse. This discourse is on the negatives of ideological "views" even of "self or no self" etc. It's cautioning against meaningless intellectual contemplation without practice without true knowing, the error of philosophers.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Interpreting impermanence as evidence for discontinuity is too extreme. It's an erroneous view that doesn't reflect the true state of affairs.

And what is the true state of affairs? True impermanence means exactly that -- discontinuity. Otherwise, well...you have continuity.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

You're missing the whole point of this discourse. This discourse is on the negatives of ideological "views" even of "self or no self" etc. It's cautioning against meaningless intellectual contemplation without practice.

No, I really am not missing it. It is quite simple. Any view which contains a "self" contains within it the seeds of suffering. Any view of rebirth contains a view of self. It is cautioning against the thicket of views that lead to suffering.

 

It is not about finding the right view of self.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, I really am not missing it. It is cautioning against the thicket of views that lead to suffering.

Reincarnation is not a thicket of views, it is a direct realization and one of the Buddha's abilities to know his former lives...as stated in the pali canons.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, I really am not missing it. It is quite simple. Any view which contains a "self" contains within it the seeds of suffering. It is cautioning against the thicket of views that lead to suffering.

 

It is not about finding the right view of self.

And so why does the Buddha, in the same sentence, warn against views of no-self?

 

But back to the point:

 

Process of change is the opposite of continuity??? Which is stoppage? If you will say, as you do with the concept of change, there is nothing continuing, just continuance, how is this directly seen? Does continuance see continuance?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

And so why does the Buddha, in the same sentence, warn against views of no-self?

 

But back to the point:

 

Process of change is the opposite of continuity??? Which is stoppage? If you will say, as you do with the concept of change, there is nothing continuing, just continuance, how is this directly seen? Does continuance see continuance?

Because no-self still involves a self. no-SELF.

 

No, it cannot be described. Stoppage, continuance -- they don't apply.

 

Right in front of you, the Buddha is saying that views of self lead to suffering and should be abandonded. Rebirth involves a view of self. Ergo...

 

Has the Buddha contradicted himself in the pali canon? You tell me.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You're missing the whole point of this discourse. This discourse is on the negatives of ideological "views" even of "self or no self" etc. It's cautioning against meaningless intellectual contemplation without practice without true knowing, the error of philosophers.

 

That's funny. You're saying it as if experience comes at you with meaning attached. There is no such thing as "bare experience." And philosophers are the only people who even have a chance to understand reality correctly. All the genuine mystics have been philosophers without exception.

[goldisheavy]

Because no-self still involves a self. no-SELF.

 

No, it cannot be described. Stoppage, continuance -- they don't apply.

 

Right in front of you, the Buddha is saying that views of self lead to suffering and should be abandonded. Rebirth involves a view of self. Ergo...

 

Has the Buddha contradicted himself in the pali canon? You tell me.

 

Buddha has never urged a dogmatic abandonment of anything. Buddha has always asked people to examine the views critically, including the view of the self. Taking a hard stance against the view of the self is actually contrary to the spirit of Buddha Dharma.

[thuscomeone]

Buddha has never urged a dogmatic abandonment of anything. Buddha has always asked people to examine the views critically, including the view of the self. Taking a hard stance against the view of the self is actually contrary to the spirit of Buddha Dharma.

Well he doesn't directly state that they should be abandonded in that quote. But seeing as how his whole teaching is about ending suffering and in that entire quoted section he talks about how views of self lead to suffering. Put 2 and 2 together and...

[thuscomeone]

To be clear once again, I am not saying that there is a self or that there isn't a self.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Because no-self still involves a self. no-SELF.

 

No, it cannot be described. Stoppage, continuance -- they don't apply.

 

Right in front of you, the Buddha is saying that views of self lead to suffering and should be abandonded. Rebirth involves a view of self. Ergo...

 

Has the Buddha contradicted himself in the pali canon? You tell me.

In my interpretation there is no contradiction, only in yours.

 

And views of no-self leads to suffering also.

 

I think the discussion stops here. "Oh, it cannot be described" is more or less a dead end in these discussions.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

In my interpretation there is no contradiction, only in yours.

 

And views of no-self leads to suffering also.

 

I think the discussion stops here, I hope you have gained at least some incentive to ponder of your views deeper than just: "oh, it cannot be described."

No, there is contradiction because the Buddha states that there is rebirth at certain times in the canon and refuses to answer the question at other times.

 

Yes, I just said that they lead to suffering.

 

Very well. You have misinterpreted a lot of what I have said, but it has been good arguing with you.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That's funny. You're saying it as if experience comes at you with meaning attached. There is no such thing as "bare experience." And philosophers are the only people who even have a chance to understand reality correctly. All the genuine mystics have been philosophers without exception.

I was referring to philosophers who have views that are merely theoretical that do not apply it to their experience beyond putting it on paper.

 

There is a difference in contemplative knowing and direct knowing, for instance the difference in theorizing the pressures one should apply to pedaling a bicycle and the actual pedaling.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, there is contradiction because the Buddha states that there is rebirth at certain times in the canon and refuses to answer the question at other times.

The grasping of self is one of the conditions for rebirth, so one should not cling to the views of a self existing before or after death without direct knowing, because then it becomes an attachment.

 

Reincarnation is a core concept in Buddhist thought. If you do not believe in rebirth then you believe in anhilation, which is an extreme the Buddha cautioned against.