[www.forumsovetov.ru]

"Sasava" is not exactly praise.

it seems like you may have not read the excerpts i quoted

Irrelevant to the topic.

definitely not irrelevent

it seems like you may have missed the Snake Sutta i posted

the Buddha listed his followers as sixfold:

1. arahants
2. non-returners
3. once-returners
4. stream-enterers
5. dhamma-followers
6. faith-followers

as i said, for faith followers, the Pali suttas also show the Buddha taught a kind of 'Tantra', where faith & love in the Triple Gem served as objects of devotion

with metta

[streMunford]

That is inherent problem with views, isn't it? Not that we have them ( which we all do ) rather that we believe them and then " see " that is how " it " should be, rather than " seeing " and dealing with how " it " actually is. Dealing with reality is what leads to the extinguishing of the fire / the end of suffering not trying to change the world to fit our view/s.

Yeah, I think so. And I don't want to be hypocritical about it; I can't say I never complain about anything, just that it rare, mild and brief these days. A lot of Western foreigners who live here seem to do little else but complain. It's like a habit or hobby. They don't see that if they drop the judgementalness and open their minds up with a little compassion, they'll be able to see why things are different here compared to where they come from. Conditions arise out of previous conditions. That's just the way the world works, and the Buddha saw and described it very well. Maybe that's why he set his goal to help a few "with just a little dust in their eyes" rather than set out to rehabilitate the whole world?

[lopaayd]

Stuka

as i already suggested, 'soteriology' does not always imply total soteriology (solace/liberation)

it seems only supramundane buddhadhamma can offer 100% soteriology

but to limit soteriology to 100% soteriology would preclude most, if not all, other religions from soteriology

Which is why we see the Buddha differentiating between his and other teachings.


however, this is contrary to what the Buddha taught because the Buddha taught there are at least four ways of soteriology, including soteriology via loving-kindness (see MN 43) What part of MN43, Lazy?

if fact, in what appears contrary to your views, the Buddha seemed also teach about soteriology via morality

.....This is the first soteriology he acquires. That is a rather strange use of the word. Whose translation is this? Usually it is "this is the first assurance...", or "solace". You appear to be equivocating.


hi Stuka

you seem to be denigrating the mundane right view but it seems the Buddha did not share your attitude He denigrated it as well by calling it sasava, with effluents (effluvium - "sewage", defilements, etc). Your use of the term "denigrate" harks back to the bad old days of E-Stasi.


thus he specifically called it "right view" and praised it
"Sasava" is not exactly praise.

it seems the Buddha did not denigrate dhamma that encouraged morality, gratitude, respect for mother & father, fear of the lower worlds, etc

the Buddha praised honoring one's mother & father, etc, (even though this is the mundane right view)
He called it "sasava" and he made the distinction between it and his own teachings, which he distinguished as liberating, without asavas (anasava), Noble (ariyo) and a Factor of the Path. Rather silly of you to take the E-Sangha/Drama Wheel party line on this.

[gundos]

MN 60 was preached to brahmins, those whom Sariputta might have considered "settled and determined on heaven". To monastics, Right View sans effluents was the chosen modality. DN 1 is a striking example.

(on a side note, Element: the Great Standards don't warrant tossing single Suttas - if they did, they themselves could be tossed...)

[cemDrymnVem]

Irrelevant.

It doesn't take a great deal of insight or common sense to see its relevance to the statement: "If all of these sects were to..." If you can interpret the metaphors and similes in the Pali suttas, this should not be a challenge.


Tell that to the ones vowing to "save all beings". "Trying to make the world conform to one's lofty ideals" and "not finding peace with the way the world actually is" is the domain and mandate of the superstitious. In this thread, it's a Straw Man. Yet another straw man claim? To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I guess.

And I don't think it's a straw man. I think you just don't (yet?) see how you've fallen into the same emotional trap as those you rail against. It's not the "domain and mandate of the superstitious," because there are a lot of non-superstitious people who have lofty ideals and rant and rave when the world doesn't conform to them. Anyone from politicians to engineers to Theravadin monks are subject to that same trap.

(How many strawmen did I construct this time? )

[Vmysobfi]

MN 60 was preached to brahmins, those whom Sariputta might have considered "settled and determined on heaven".

hi Dave

i do not see the relevence of your point about Sariputta

in other words, it does not make the mundane right view the Buddha often taught "non-Buddhist"

the mundane right view serves as the basis of right view & right conduct for a Buddhist layperson & also for a Buddhist monk

although an enlightened Buddhist monk may transform 'his mother & father' into mere empty dependently originated phenomena (dhatu), when giving a public speech, for example, about his mother & father, the enlightened Buddhist still must speak in conventional language & accord with the mundane right view

in short, i think it is strongly argueable that the mundane right view is "Buddhist" rather than Brahministic

with metta

When this was said, the brahman householders of Sala said, "Magnificent, master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. We go to master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma and to the Community of monks. May master Gotama remember us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

[MyLeva]

it seems like you may have not read the excerpts i quoted

I did, and I am quite familiar with MN 60, thanks. "Praised by the wise" does not mean "this is my liberative teachings". The Buddha's own teaching is represented in the hierarchy as the cessation of becoming.



definitely not irrelevent
Certainly irrelevant.


it seems like you may have missed the Snake Sutta i posted
I did not. It does not apply, and your use of it here is mere Ad Hominem.


the Buddha listed his followers as sixfold:

1. arahants
2. non-returners
3. once-returners
4. stream-enterers
5. dhamma-followers
6. faith-followers

as i said, for faith followers, the Pali suttas also show the Buddha taught a kind of 'Tantra', where faith & love in the Triple Gem served as objects of devotion
"A kind of" with a good bit of equivocation. But I have said nothing of tantra here. Please keep to the topic.

[Abebpabeniemo]

MN 60 was preached to brahmins, those whom Sariputta might have considered "settled and determined on heaven". To monastics, Right View sans effluents was the chosen modality. DN 1 is a striking example.

(on a side note, Element: the Great Standards don't warrant tossing single Suttas - if they did, they themselves could be tossed...)

Indeed.

[blankostaroe]

It doesn't take a great deal of insight or common sense to see its relevance to the statement: "If all of these sects were to..." If you can interpret the metaphors and similes in the Pali suttas, this should not be a challenge.

There is a huge difference, FBM. People are born with their sex. The various sects choose whether to reference the teachings of the Buddha or not. Clint asked if there was aqsolution to the problem of discord and sectarianism. I pointed out a solution.

Yet another straw man claim? To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I guess. It is inded a straw man. You are misrepresenting what I am saying. It's also an ad hominem.

And I don't think it's a straw man. I think you just don't (yet?) see how you've fallen into the same emotional trap as those you rail against. That is not the case. Again, Clint posed a problem, I pointed to a solution. All this "save the world" crap is a distortion of what I am saying.

It's not the "domain and mandate of the superstitious," because there are a lot of non-superstitious people who have lofty ideals and rant and rave when the world doesn't conform to them. It's the domain of the mahayana.

Anyone from politicians to engineers to Theravadin monks are subject to that same trap.
But that is not what I'm doing. And that's what makes it a straw man.

[goctorsurger]

There is a huge difference, FBM. People are born with their sex.

You lost me on the 'sex' bit. Anyway, 'people' are illusions. So are sects. Convenient fictions. Empty placeholders. If you believe in 'people' and 'sects' you have yet to comprehend anatta, which may explain the dualistic 'us vs them' false dichotomy that lies at the heart of so much dischord in the world and in your interactions with other BWB members.

The various sects choose whether to reference the teachings of the Buddha or not. If you believe in this, you believe in free will. Do you believe in free will? If so, who has this free will? Do not conditions arise out of previous conditions that...? Where is the free will in the patticasamuppada that allows these convenient fictions to choose freely and independently of prior conditions?

Clint asked if there was aqsolution to the problem of discord and sectarianism. I pointed out a solution. The solution you pointed out is a formula for entrenching each 'side' more deeply in their positions. Of course the debate would be over if everyone simply agreed to agree with your position. That formula works equally well in both directions. But stating that gets us no closer to a practical resolution, and taking a fire-and-brimstone approach to stating your case is counter-productive, to say the least. I say this as someone who agrees with your basic premise, but has experienced first-hand the futility of your approach.

It is inded a straw man. You are misrepresenting what I am saying. Or perhaps you fail to see all the implications of what you are saying.

It's also an ad hominem. It wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was a reference to the Certainty Bias. I apologize if my statement caused you offence.


That is not the case. Again, Clint posed a problem, I pointed to a solution. All this "save the world" crap is a distortion of what I am saying. Are you not out to "save" Buddhism by eliminating the opposition by dialectical force? Again, I agree with your basic premise. I don't see the Mahayana sutras or later-developed doctrines as genuinely Buddhist, and I agree, more or less, that some of these doctrines are hi-jackings of the Buddha's good name in order to contradict him. We agree on that. We disagree on the strategy for addressing it. Your solution exacerbates the problem, in my personal experiences. No matter how "right" you may be, if you beat people over the head with your evidence, you will accomplish nothing but to piss them off and further entrench them in resisting you. Regardless of how pure your intent, your headstrong and aggressive manner defeats your purpose, and you wind up making the problem worse, not better. I'm just glad you're not a Muslim, dood.

It's the domain of the mahayana. Exclusive domain? There's no chance that anyone else sets up lofty ideals and throws a hissy fit when the world doesn't conform to them? Think about this. I'm ready with dozens of examples. You're one of them.


But that is not what I'm doing. And that's what makes it a straw man. Simple denial with a bald assertion? No supporting argumentation? From this perspective, it seems more likely that you are incapable of seeing your own actions from a larger perspective, and therefore you see stawmen (innumberable strawmen) every time someone disagrees with anything you say. It seems to me that you have fallen prey to the Certainty Bias and have no interest in entertaining the possibility that your ideas and/or approaches may be anything less than perfect. I used to. That's how I recognize it. It's a great, great relief to be rid of this monkey on one's back. I won't ask you to trust my word on this, I will only suggest that you try it out and see for yourself. Look at things from others' perspectives and try to understand why they think the way they do, rather than judging them harshly for it. Thing are the way they are because innumerable other things beyond their knowledge, much less their control, were they way they were stretching back many millenia. No one is to blame. There is no one, ultimately. There are only phenomena arising and passing, conditioned by prior phenomena.

[giDdfezP]

You lost me on the 'sex' bit.

You are the one that said that if your auntie had bollocks she'd be your uncle. However irrelevant and off topic it was...

Anyway, 'people' are illusions.
That is an ontological assertion.

So are sects. Convenient fictions. Empty placeholders. Ideas are conventions.

If you believe in 'people' and 'sects' you have yet to comprehend anatta, They are conventions, in the sense that you are pontificating at me. And in that sense, that is not what I believe. I didn't know you were an Advaitist.

which may explain the dualistic 'us vs them' false dichotomy that lies at the heart of so much dischord in the world and in your interactions with other BWB members. You are making a lot of assumptions. You are also employing an ad Homunem fallacy and derailung the topic.

If you believe in this, you believe in free will. Do you believe in free will? If so, who has this free will? Do not conditions arise out of previous conditions that...? Where is the free will in the patticasamuppada that allows these convenient fictions to choose freely and independently of prior conditions?
Im certainly not a determinist. Free will comes in the choice to not cling. But again, this is off topic.

The solution you pointed out is a formula for entrenching each 'side' more deeply in their positions. How do you come by this opinon?

Of course the debate would be over if everyone simply agreed to agree with your position. I am not asserting that. Again the Ad Hom.

That formula works equally well in both directions. But stating that gets us no closer to a practical resolution, and taking a fire-and-brimstone approach to stating your case is counter-productive, to say the least. I have said nothing of fire or brimstone. Again the Straw Man.

I say this as someone who agrees with your basic premise, but has experienced first-hand the futility of your approach. I am not convinced.

Or perhaps you fail to see all the implications of what you are saying. Not at all. Again, this isn't about me. What is it that you find so big and scary about the solution that you feel the need to launch an extended attack on me to derail the thread a seventh or tenth time?


It wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was an Ad Hominem Fallacy.

It was a reference to the Certainty Bias. I apologize if my statement caused you offence. It did not cause offence. It was an Ad Hominem Fallacy. Play the ball and not the man.

Are you not out to "save" Buddhism by eliminating the opposition by dialectical force? No, I am not You assume a great deal.

Again, I agree with your basic premise. I don't see the Mahayana sutras or later-developed doctrines as genuinely Buddhist, and I agree, more or less, that some of these doctrines are hi-jackings of the Buddha's good name in order to contradict him. We agree on that. Doesn't really look like it from your tactivs here.

We disagree on the strategy for addressing it. Your solution exacerbates the problem, in my personal experiences. That would be your opinion. YOu seriously think that suggesting that sects who call themselves "Buddhist" might do well to look to the teachings of the Buddha rather than superstition and culltural accretion exacerbates the problem? It's a no-brainer, FBM.

No matter how "right" you may be, if you beat people over the head with your evidence, you will accomplish nothing but to piss them off and further entrench them in resisting you. And again you go with the Ad Hominem.

Regardless of how pure your intent, your headstrong and aggressive manner defeats your purpose, and you wind up making the problem worse, not better. I'm just glad you're not a Muslim, dood. What do you find so scary about suggesting that "Buddhist" sects look to the teachings of the BUddha that you feel a need to derail the topic into a Stuka-love-fest?

Exclusive domain? There's no chance that anyone else sets up lofty ideals and throws a hissy fit when the world doesn't conform to them? Think about this. I'm ready with dozens of examples. You're one of them. You are confusing objectivity for emotion and presuming a great deal. And, again resorting to ad Hominem and detailling tha topic.

Simple denial with a bald assertion? No supporting argumentation? From this perspective, it seems more likely that you are incapable of seeing your own actions from a larger perspective, and therefore you see stawmen (innumberable strawmen) every time someone disagrees with anything you say. It seems to me that you have fallen prey to the Certainty Bias and have no interest in entertaining the possibility that your ideas and/or approaches may be anything less than perfect. That is not the case It appears that you would like it to be. This is called Confirmation Bias.

I used to. That's how I recognize it. It's a great, great relief to be rid of this monkey on one's back. I won't ask you to trust my word on this, I will only suggest that you try it out and see for yourself. Look at things from others' perspectives and try to understand why they think the way they do, rather than judging them harshly for it. I did not ask for your diagnosis based upon your confirmation bias. Looks likke it is you who is falling to Certainty Bias. You know your own hammer, and everyone else is a nail. I do not share your motives in this respect.

Thing are the way they are because innumerable other things beyond their knowledge, much less their control, were they way they were stretching back many millenia. No one is to blame. There is no one, ultimately. There are only phenomena arising and passing, conditioned by prior phenomena.
What is it that is so big and scary about the suggestion that folks who call themselves "Buddhist" look to the teachings of the Buddha, that drives you to launch a three-day ad hominem crusade to derail it?

[Leaters]

...and therefore you see strawmen (innumberable strawmen) every time someone disagrees with anything you say

I think its also worth taking into consideration that often people don't give a hoot about "straw men" or debating terminology, they just want to chat about Dhamma with a friendly group of people in a relaxed non-confrontational atmosphere

[hiedeemom]

What is it that is so big and scary about the suggestion that folks who call themselves "Buddhist" look to the teachings of the Buddha, that drives you to launch a three-day ad hominem crusade to derail it?

Melodramatic nonsense !

[Soresbox]

I think its also worth taking into consideration that often people don't give a hoot about "straw men" or debating terminology, they just want to chat about Dhamma with a friendly group of people in a relaxed non-confrontational atmosphere

"Straw Man" is simply shorthand for distorting what another person is saying and arguing against the distortion.

[BiseCreesia]

Melodramatic nonsense !

Yes, that is exactly the phrase I was looking for.

[Ubgvuncd]

"Straw Man" is simply shorthand for distorting what another person is saying and arguing against the distortion.

And it's miscategorized when the person who made the original statement fails to ascertain the connotations of what he said. By failing to make all the connections, whether through ignorance, laziness, dishonesty, incapacity or blind enthusiasm, he assumes that there is an intentional distortion, when in fact, there is a direct relevance, if only the claimant could/would make the effort to connect the dots. The strawman claim is easy to make. It's harder to justify.

[LindaSmithIV]

Yes, that is exactly the phrase I was looking for.

Who's introducing all the melodrama into this forum? For the most part, people are exchanging experiences and ideas in a peaceful and mutually supportive way. Seems to me that your posts are the main source of melodrama around here. Am I wrong? (Of course I am. I've made another strawman fallacy or seven.)

[Anykeylo]

I think its also worth taking into consideration that often people don't give a hoot about "straw men" or debating terminology, they just want to chat about Dhamma with a friendly group of people in a relaxed non-confrontational atmosphere

I think the Beyond Belief subforum is a place where people ought to give a hoot about rules of evidence and fallacies of reasoning, lest they make mere assertions about these rather contentious topics. The rest of the forum is a rather relaxed place; here, the tendency for upset is strong enough that an external structure of objectivity is quite helpful.

[slowlexrese]

Originally Posted by Aloka-D I think its also worth taking into consideration that often people don't give a hoot about "straw men" or debating terminology, they just want to chat about Dhamma with a friendly group of people in a relaxed non-confrontational atmosphere

I think the Beyond Belief subforum is a place where people ought to give a hoot about rules of evidence and fallacies of reasoning, lest they make mere assertions about these rather contentious topics. The rest of the forum is a rather relaxed place; here, the tendency for upset is strong enough that an external structure of objectivity is quite helpful.
Yes, point taken Dave, I'd forgotten we were in BB ....and of course it was originally intended as a lively debating forum for the more experienced practitioner.

[mirvokrug]

And it's miscategorized when the person who made the original statement fails to ascertain the connotations of what he said. By failing to make all the connections, whether through ignorance, laziness, dishonesty, incapacity or blind enthusiasm, he assumes that there is an intentional distortion, when in fact, there is a direct relevance, if only the claimant could/would make the effort to connect the dots. The strawman claim is easy to make. It's harder to justify.

True, but that is not the case here. However, the distortion does not have to be intentional. In your case, it is the product of confirmation bias.