I’m not here to discuss my own ideas, whatever they might be. This page is for CT and non-CT, as per the T&C. Rather than constantly trying to attack me, you might want to discuss the actual topic at hand.
You claim to be Theravada and deny holding Mahayana views, but refuse to renounce the Mahayana positions and adopt CT views. Hmmmm I wonder why…
I broadly agree with CT. I don’t on other things but as I’ve repeatedly told you I’m not here to discuss my own personal views, nor to convince others of them or anything like that. I’m here to discuss and learn about CT. Here you aren’t objecting to anything I’ve said, but simply to me being here. If you don’t want to interact with me then just block me. Honestly discussing me over and over isn’t interesting for anyone.
This isn’t DhammaWheel or SuttaCentral. I’m well aware of that, and I’m glad a page like this exists. It’s quite unique and needed.
You straight up try to convince people CT is idealism, like by definition. You don’t even hide it:
You also had a whole thread trying to convince us that CT is phenomenalism, which is a form of idealism. You also dog my footsteps and preach your “CT is idealism” stuff everywhere I go.
Also Ceisiwr: “ I’m not here to discuss my own personal views, nor to convince others of them ”
Lol
Believe me, if I could block you I would have, years ago lol! Neither here nor dhammawheel have a block feature. You can make another user less visible by marking them a “foe” on dhammawheel, but they still can see and comment on your posts. Meaning they still derail your posts and troll other users on them. It’s not like other forums where they cannot see nor interact with you after you block them. So it’s pointless.
And, for the umpteenth time: I only exist in your mind. So, how am I the problem?
I’m not even an idealist. I made a post about phenomenalism like, what, a year ago or something not long after I started posting here. If you disagree that we are not aware of a mental representation then show me where I am wrong according to the Abhidhamma or commentaries. All I’ve done is reference said texts where it says that. Ven. Bodhi though is explaining it according to what Ledi Sayadaw taught, so it could be wrong.
Believe me, if I could block you I would have, years ago lol!
Sorry that you feel like that.
Well, you obviously think you really exist. How is that compatible with CT? Does CT teach that you really exist? I’ve never been taught that, or read it, but perhaps I’m wrong.
Misdirection. I asked you to “state right now that you believe that dhammas possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.
Not that you’re just saying that because you’re on a CT forum, but that you actually believe it.
Then I’ll stop treating you as if I’m imaginary.“
This is what I mean by “exist,” and that is abundantly clear. Im not going to spell it out in a full paragraph every time.
I’ve already told you I’m not going to get into my own personal opinions and views. I’m not doing that because it’s not appropriate here. I’m keeping to the T&Cs. You seem intent on trying to make me break the rules of the forum, which I’m not going to do as I enjoy the forum and have respect for Robert and Bhante and their aims for the page. I’m here to discuss CT and learn more about it, the Abhidhamma and commentaries which is what this page is all about. It’s not about only having members who Zan personally approves of, like there is a check list of yours people have to pass first in order to post here.
If you aren’t going to discuss CT then it’s best we leave it there. This thread has already been derailed enough as it is.
Actually it looks like I was wrong regarding the mental representation idea, having just read this
For all types of eye-door consciousnesses: In an eye-door cognitive
process, all the cittas pertaining to that process take the visible form as
their object. The visible form is not the object solely of eye-consciousness.
The five-door adverting consciousness, the receiving, investigating and
determining consciousnesses, the javanas, and the registration cittas also
occur with the same visible form as their object. Further, these cittas
occurring in an eye-door process take “visible form alone” (r³pam eva)
as object. Within that process they cannot cognize any other kind of
object.
A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
The Atthasālinī warns about the Abhidhamma dependence with the intellect:
"By Time the Sage described the Mind
And by the Mind he described the Time;
In order, that by such a definition,
The dhammas there in classes may be show"
This thread has been derailed? LOL! By you! You are the one one my heels for like, what, five years or more across multiple forums. Any time I post anything about CT realism, you are there with insidious, fallacious confirmation bias ridden word salad suggesting, or outright claiming that CT is idealism/extreme nihilism aka Madhyamaka-yogacara.
On Dhammawheel I can only think of one time I ever even bothered to engage in one of your threads. Other than that I never come to your threads and correct your idealist nonsense, but you are on most of mine bothering me with your nonsense. However, on this site realism is the CT position, which is why I correct you here, and I don’t want to see this site become another hub for “it’s all a dream, man” anything goes Buddhism like dhammawheel. Hippy BS Buddhism like that is what leads to people like Jack Kerouac being really immoral and thinking they are proper Buddhists, and really no one being able to correct them. If it’s all unreal, then so is morality, and so is the dhamma!
Further, the only reason you are hiding behind the T&Cs is because we both know your views are completely incompatible with Theravada, and you are only pretending you are promoting CT here, but you clearly are not. You are trying to convince us that even arahants only ever experience their own minds lol! This is Mahayana idealism and a misinterpretation of the CT teachings.
You idealists are the most annoying people, because you are such blatant hypocrites, and are so utterly confused. Hubris and condescension while being self defeating, and clueless that that’s what you’re doing, at the same time. So much: “I know nothing is real, BUT I will constantly preach at people about my beliefs and use books and logic to prove them! I will also pay my bills and go to work and buy a computer and phone to debate people on the internet with. BUT none of these things exist.” Just absolute egregious asinine nonsense.
That said, I would really appreciate it if you just never talk to me again. I may still add clarifying quotes to demonstrate that CT is realism when you try to convince people of your idealism on this forum, but I won’t tag you in them, and they won’t be a reply to you directly, so just consider them directed at the users you’re trying to fool, and not you. I will make sure I only post them as responses to other users, never you.
I’ll simply never talk to you again, nor even comment on anything you post on dhammawheel, since that forum is mostly idealists anyway and there’s no rules that are enforced, so it doesn’t matter anyway. As above, dhammawheel is “anything goes Buddhism,” and precisely the type of thing which is why this forum exists. Further, I really don’t care about dhammawheel, and don’t use it for this reason. I don’t really think about Buddhism much these days in general beyond my own practice and I only even got on this forum because I got an email showing a reply to one of my posts.
Finally, if you can ever state that you believe that dhammas possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.
Not that you’re just saying that because you’re on a CT forum, but that you actually believe it.
Then by all means let me know and I’d be happy to talk to you, but, barring that, I’m out, because I’m utterly sick of this idealism/extreme nihilism nonsense. I’ve only put up with it this long because you’re always so well spoken and friendly, but, I’m done with it. It’s tiresome dealing with you.
I have closed this thread as it has become a personal debate.
3 Likes
I’m simply not getting it? You are on a Classical Theravada site, where the authoritative position is a realist one, in that objects do arise outside of consciousness, in the form of dhammas, which are ultimate reality, beneath the pannatti (concepts) that we normally understand. Yet you keep claiming objects do not exist outside of consciousness, and generally presenting a confused (and, I suspect drug fueled, since you believe vaping the hardcore hallucinogenic drug DMT is equivalent to jhana) version of subjective idealism, and then turning around and denying that it’s subjective idealism.
I have informed you, repeatedly, what the CT position is, and validated it with well sourced quotes, from unparalleled experts in the field, on the matter. For example of previously shared quotes:
You keep doing this, and then ending the conversation, rather than admitting you are wrong. For the umpteenth time, your position is not authoritative here, neither is mine, only the Classical Theravada position is. And, that position is a realist one, which is that objects exist outside of consciousness in the form of dhammas, that are not pannatti, as I’ve demonstrated again, and again, with quotes, yet, you think that I’m the one who is just not getting it?
You even responded to the quotes by experts, far beyond your knowledge of the Theravada, and beyond mine, for that matter, with:
So, you’re arguing that your understanding of the Theravada is the correct view, and this is that Theravada is some kind of subjective idealism, but not subjective idealism, in which objects do not exist outside of consciousness, and realism is wrong. You don’t believe the experts, and the entire Classical Theravada school that agrees with them, including the Visuddhimagga, commentaries, Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Abhidhamma itself, and so on. Further, you declare the Classical Theravada school’s view on reality as “the default worldly view,” of “unreflective people,” and, again, I’m the one who is still not getting it?
What?
Also, you seriously need to read the faq for this forum.
Who Should Join
We are looking for people who are interested in Classical Theravāda who are not afraid of dogmatism as it relates to Classical Theravāda. We are not looking to be convinced about alternate faiths, even those within “The Wide Range of Buddhism”. Please do not publicize this website, but only share by word of mouth. We are refugees from other groups looking to discuss and praise Classical Theravāda. If this group is for you, we welcome you. Please read the FAQ before joining.
FAQ
This website forum was created for those who are in favor of Classical Theravāda which will be known as CT and the members as CT’ers. CT was created for those who seek a supportive environment or safe haven to discuss such topics in English without the entanglements of other “schools” which seem to be the majority in the English Dhamma world.Who Should Not Join?
If you are not in favor of Classical Theravāda, which means the full Tipitaka including Abhidhamma with the commentary explanations and most of the sub-commentaries, it would be best join another group such as Dhammawheel or Suttacentral.Disqualification Checklist:
Are you one who passionately follows other sects of Buddhism?
Do you wish to spread these other nonCT teachings here?
What if I’m not a pure orthodox Theravādan?
Some who want to learn CT but not convert are welcome, but “learning” must be the intent rather than “sharing”. It is a one-way experience if you wish to join.
Ok, seriously my last response on this:
Your mind is attached to intellection and you’re using the suttas to feed that attachment. Directly seeing, for yourself, is superior to 10000 suttas, and the entire point of the Buddha’s teaching is that you can see for yourself. The suttas are only a guide to that.
I gave up trying to find answers through reading suttas and comparing views. It doesn’t interest me because it doesn’t lead to answers but only leads to getting stuck comparing views and anxiety about “the correct interpretation” and “authoritativeness.” All you’re doing here is feeding your clinging to finding “the right view.” The way out is to stop and just look directly for yourself, which is the perfection of right view. There is no higher view! Why does the stream-enterer have perfect faith? Because they have seen for themselves. And on this issue it’s far easier to see than stream-entry!
On this particular issue, I honestly don’t care (what you think) the suttas say. I honestly don’t care what any tradition says because it’s all just view comparing and interpretation and opinion. I have a “faith” that’s unshakeable because it’s not faith at all: it’s directly seeing. It’s seeing right now or any time I wish. It’s not even mystical, it’s not some great attainment or anything like that. It’s just looking. No sutta, no tradition, no man, woman, child, animal, sword, or hammer can break that.
You do not see, but only because you refuse to look. You’re here to find scholars and texts that confirm some intellectual view you have. I have no use for intellectual views, at least not in this way; only practice bears the fruit of seeing and intellectual views can only be a map, not the territory itself.
You’re treating scriptures the same way Christians do: to find some correct interpretation and thinking you’ll find lasting contentment with that answer. You won’t, and when it still gnaws at you you’ll have to quiet that voice of skepticism with zealotry or more scripture searching, which is what you’re doing.
The promise of the Buddha is you can see for yourself. That’s the best part about this path. You just have to look.
@bksubhuti @RobertK @Ontheway @ekocare
Thoughts?
For reference (and fyi DMT is one of the most powerful hallucinogenic drugs on Earth):
Regarding their theory of sense perception and the nature of the cognitive object, the Theravāda Abhidhamma view is a kind of direct realism that says we do perceive external physical objects.
Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 149.