[nerrttrw]

Light and darkness is such an example as each is a complete negation of the other. They cannot peacefully co-exist in close proximity with each other. I am looking at a shadow on the floor. Please show me the turmoil that this shadow is going through, the battle between light and darkness. Should I not step too close, lest I be hit by stray bullets?

They appear and disappear due to the totally of causes. This is the Buddhist theory of causation. The Law of Excluded Middle also fully applied here as well. Please show in the Nikayas where the Buddha taught idappaccayata (causality) this way. Please show where the Buddha teaches your "Law of the Excluded Middle" and a "fight between absolute light and absolute darkness".



In real phenomena, there is always something in the middle. If light appears all of a sudden, there is always an intermediate moment of twilight between darkness and light. You contradict your own assertion. And the shadows, you forgot about the shadows....

This is different in the case of logical opposition between light and non-light, the opposition is complete without an intermediate twilight moment. Perhaps you mean "sophistry" rather than "logic".

[vipBrooriErok]

Here, it can also be mentioned that the Theravada tradition maintained that between pleasure and pain there is the third position of Indifferent feeling in the middle. Please show where the Buddha teaches "neither-pleasurable-nor-displeasurable" as a "middle" between the two. The middle between the two would be "both pleasurable and displeasurable".


To the Buddhist logician, the last moment of the series of darkness is the cause (in the sense of dependent origination) of the first moment of light. If this is "Buddhist logic", then please show in the Nikayas where the Buddha taught this. And please show where the Buddha taught that paticcasamuppada had anything to do with physical events of light and darkness.

The cause of what is perceived as the "first moment of light" is the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, or the heating or charging of a substance by some physical means. Darkness does not cause light. Darkness is simply the either partial or complete absence of light. Paticcasamuppada is a teaching model which describes mental processes, that has nothing whatsoever to do with light or darkness.


Real causation belongs to a single moment only. On the other hand, efficient opposition is between one set of moments (duration of time) and another set which is constructed by our intellect. It is not ultimate reality. It is constructed phenomena. It is not any sort of reality at all. It is papanka, monkey-chatter, word salad that the Buddha did not teach.


The Laws of Contradiction is one of the main tools... ....of sophistry...


....used by the Buddhist logicians.... ....to use the term extremely loosely....

in establishing their theory of Instantaneous Being, for Instantaneousness is the very essence of every real thing. ....a theory the Buddha did not teach, and an irrelevant speculative wilderness of views the Buddha did not teach.

The logical law of contradiction does not apply to the ‘Things-in Themselves’, as logic is thought and thought is imagination and not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality in Buddhist philosophy is the reality of a point instant. It is the efficiency of a point instant. There is no relation of opposition between entities. This is simply word salad. The Buddha did not teach "Ultimate Reality", nor are any such nonsensical speculative views useful or relevant at all to his liberative teachings. This sort of sophistic wheel-spinning is just irrelevant papanca, useless mental masturbation that buries the Buddha's teachings under a pile of superstition and speculation in the tibetan religions. The great drum is long gone, and only a mass of pegs remains.

[nerrttrw]

...the external world that we perceived is relative and dualistic in nature. That what is ultimately real goes beyond our dualistic intellectual thought process. ....a speculative wilderness of views that the Budha neither held nor taught. Again, wallowing in the very dualisms that one is attempting to refute.


It is trying to say, “if you open your mouth you are already wrong, if you give rise to a single thought you are in error." And yet the Buddha opened his mouth and spoke at length to teach and explain his Dhamma. The Buddha never taught the above hogwash.

It is the silence that follows after the sound of discussion has ceased and when the role of thought is over. In short, what is ultimately real can only be realized intuitively. More speculative thickets of views that the Buddha did not teach and would not endorse.



"Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."


--SN 20.7 Ani Sutta: The Peg

[thushioli]

"But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering."

e.g. the Dhammapada, the Heart Sutra, and so forth.

[ClorrerVeks]

ACK - what a muddled mess of ideas... "There is one thing which, if practised and developed conduces to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening and to Nirvana. And what is that one thing? It is the recollection of peace." According to the guy who wrote the tome that started this thread, there is no peace or non-peace, like there is no blue or non-blue... I think the Buddha taught nearly the opposite of what he says...

[slima]

@stuka – Look like in your opinion what does not come from the Tripitaka are either sophistry, hogwash, wild speculation and what have you. It is a stand I notice, taken by some followers of the Theravada tradition on other Buddhist schools. A sign of real commitment to its teaching indeed, but at the same time showing up the intolerance side as well towards teaching that are either not in accordance to their expectation or their lack of understanding of it. Before we can move forward to any meaningful discussion, suggest you go, read up more on the development on the Buddhist Faith and try, at the same time to also read up on some thoughts of other Buddhist schools as well.

@Steveroosk – care to elaborate further on what is the opposite the Blessed One says……?

[DarrenBent]

@stuka – Look like in your opinion what does not come from the Tripitaka are either sophistry, hogwash, wild speculation and what have you.

Sophistry, hogwash, and wild speculation are sophistry, hogwash, and wild speculation. Does not matter where it comes from or doesn't come from. Is this how the Great Masters of Vajrayana Logic address legitimate criticism of their speculative views, by resorting to innuendo? You do not speak for my "opinion" or how I discern hogwash from the teachings of the Buddha.

It is a stand I notice, taken by some followers of the Theravada tradition on other Buddhist schools. You are beating on a straw dog. The fact of what is and what is not the Buddha's teachings has nothing to do with Theravada, mahayana, the tibetan religions.

A sign of real commitment to its teaching indeed, My commitment is to the teachings of the man we know of as "the Buddha". You might have heard of him. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Majjhima Nikaya? The Samyutta Nikaya? Please be honest--do you even have a copy of either? Have you ever even cracked open a copy?


... but at the same time showing up the intolerance side Funny how folks who would play fast and loose with the Buddha's teachings are the first to accuse folks who challenge their wild speculations of "intolerance". I note, however, that you have said exactly zero to address the legitimate criticisms that have been presented toward your thesis. Instead you have chosen to villify those who critique it.


...as well towards teaching that are either not in accordance to their expectation My expectation toward teaching that are presented as "Buddhist" is that they comport with the teachings of the Buddha. We are, after all, supposedly Buddhists, even if only in name.

...or their lack of understanding of it. Ah, yes, the Courtier's Reply. We don't see The Emperor's New Clothes because we lack the ability to. This is the cheap ploy of the carnival barker. The fact is that I understand what you wrote. My criticism arises from my understanding of your assertions and of the Buddhas liberative teachings which I doubt you have much, if any, understanding of. My criticism address the vast chasm between the two.

Before we can move forward to any meaningful discussion, suggest you go, read up more on the development on the Buddhist Faith and try, at the same time to also read up on some thoughts of other Buddhist schools as well. I do not recall soliciting your advice. Even a child and a village idiot is capable of pointing out that The Emperor Has No Clothes. Suggest you defend your thesis and quit cowering behind Ad Hominems.

[c-cialis]

@stuka - The article written provides only a very brief outline of one of the aspect of Buddhist logic. In this case, how we perceive the external world. The Law of Contradiction talk about is just a small potion used in the exposition of Buddhist logic. Buddhist logic is a system of epistemology created between the 6 and 7 century AD.

It starts with the simple statement that ‘All successful human action is preceded by right knowledge.’ And then when on to investigate the sources, limits and the validity of knowledge itself. Sense perception is considered as one of the valid source of knowledge and the Law of Contradiction is one of the methods used to explain how we perceive the external world. A bigger picture of what Buddhist Logic is can be obtained from the work of Dharmakirti - ‘A Short Treatise of Logic’.

Heard of the Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya? The answer is yes. Own a copy of them, no. I am not into the Suttas, but do occasionally refer to the Visuddhimagga, the Dhammapada and the Abdhidhamma which I do have in my possession. The only Sutta which I am familiar with and used in my prayer everyday is the Metta Sutta.

[irridgita]

A bigger picture of what Buddhist Logic is can be obtained from the work of Dharmakirti - ‘A Short Treatise of Logic’.

From the section on Buddhism at Wikipedia, about Dharmakirti (7th century):




Collins (2000: p. 240) colourfully contextualized Dharmakirti and his experience of disaffection and collegiate misunderstanding at Nalanda:-



"...... Dharmakirti himself was a lay Buddhist, not a devout monk, and his personal tone sounds like secular ambition rather than a quest for salvation. The closing stanza of his great work laments the dearth of capable intellectuals to follow his philosophy: "My work will find no one in this world who would easily grasp its deep sayings. It will be absorbed and perish in my own person, just as a river in the ocean."

A Tibetan historian says that when he finished the work, his pupils showed no appreciation, and his enemies "tied up the leaves [of the palm-leaf manuscript] to the tail of a dog and let him run through the streets where the leaves became scattered" (Stcherbatsky, 1962: 1:35-36).

In fact, Dharmakirti did end up dominating the leading philosophers of the last generations of Indian Buddhism. But his pessimism was prescient. Leaving Nalanda, he retired to his home in the south, where he founded a monastery. The next successful Brahman student from the south was to be Shankara, and when he came north, it would be to plunder the carcass of a dying [Indian] Buddhism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakirti

[anatmob]

@stuka - The article written provides only a very brief outline of one of the aspect of Buddhist logic.

ROFLMAO!

That's not Buddhist logic! The Buddha had Buddhist logic WAY back when he was alive, long before the Brahmins invented Brahmannical "Buddhist logic"!

In this case, how we perceive the external world. The Law of Contradiction talk about is just a small potion used in the exposition of Buddhist logic. Buddhist logic is a system of epistemology created between the 6 and 7 century AD. By Brahmins! It's Brahmin Logic! Infused and informed by superstition, not what one can see and know for themselves here and now, like the Buddha's logic!

It starts with the simple statement that 'All successful human action is preceded by right knowledge.'; An absurdity! It is easy to be successful by accident! I do it all the time!


And then when on to investigate the sources, limits and the validity of knowledge itself. Irrelevant papanca! The Buddha did not concern himself with epistemology, he was concerned with something immeasurably more important: suffering and its cure!

Sense perception is considered as one of the valid source of knowledge and the Law of Contradiction is one of the methods used to explain how we perceive the external world. Blue is still a million different hues by itself! There is no such thing as "either blue or not-blue"! The Buddha had his own method to explain how we perceive and react to the world both internal and external as it presents to us! There was never any need to improve upon it, and it was not an epistemology, it was a teaching device to break unskillful mental habits and lead us out of suffering!

A bigger picture of what Buddhist Logic is can be obtained from the work of Dharmakirti - 'A Short Treatise of Logic'. That is Brahmin Logic! Dharmakirti was a Brahmin!


WIKI:

History

Born around the turn of the 7th century, Dharmakirti was a South Indian Brahmin and became a teacher at the famed Nalanda University, as well as a poet. He built on and reinterpreted the work of Dignaga, the pioneer of Buddhist Logic, and was very influential among Brahman logicians as well as Buddhists. His theories became normative in Tibet and are studied to this day as a part of the basic monastic curriculum.
Heard of the Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya? The answer is yes. Own a copy of them, no. It is SO funny how no one I have asked that has answered in the affirmative! E-Sangha administrators? NO! Editors of major "Buddhist" Magazines? NO! Monks and Geshes and priests? NO! ---"We are not into that boring 'Buddha' shit! We have the literary works of Brahmins and imposters and poets and outsiders that we pay attention to", they say!

I am not into the Suttas.... What you are telling me is: "I am not into the teachings of the Buddha, I am into the works of Brahmin imposters, poets, outsiders!"

But that is fine, my friend -- just admit that you are a Brahmin, put on the red dot and be done with it!


....but do occasionally refer to the Visuddhimagga, the Dhammapada and the Abdhidhamma which I do have in my possession. -- the literary works of Brahmin imposters like Dharmakirti and Buddhaghosa, of poets and outsiders!

The only Sutta which I am familiar with and used in my prayer everyday is the Metta Sutta. That does not surprise me in the least!


Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1]

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

--Ani Sutta, SN 20.7

[Zarekylin75]

@stuka - Bless you friend, I have nothing to add to your latest comment.

[tabcdyop]

I am not into the Suttas, but do occasionally refer to the Visuddhimagga, the Dhammapada and the Abdhidhamma which I do have in my possession. The only Sutta which I am familiar with and used in my prayer everyday is the Metta Sutta.

You seem to be familiar with texts that are known to not be authored by the Buddha, yet those discourses the Buddha did originate you're just not into. This simply boggles the mind.

[slima]

@daverupa - I prefer reading commentaries, explanations and elaboration on the various discourses of the Nikayas rather than reading the actual discourses itself. It is just a personal preference I guess.

[ASSESTYTEAH]

@daverupa - I prefer reading commentaries, explanations and elaboration on the various discourses of the Nikayas rather than reading the actual discourses itself. It is just a personal preference I guess.

This sankhara is an obstruction.

Dutthatthaka Sutta

"One whose doctrines aren't clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.

Because entrenchments in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments."

[Qzmsdoem]

I am not into the Suttas

So, you know nothing of Jhana? Give yourself a chance ATC and have a look. You may be very surprised at what you find.

[AnthonyKing]

I prefer reading commentaries, explanations and elaboration on the various discourses of the Nikayas rather than reading the actual discourses itself. It is just a personal preference I guess.

Reading commentaries are useful of course, can guide but in my personal experience a commentary can induce you to that personal understanding and you can lose your own personal experience. As a personal preference I tend to be cautious with "commentaries". Direct reading of suttas, with insight, gotten through meditation, slowly, giving time to digest it, proving it, experiencing it, with out resistance makes a difference. I first read the sutta as it is given, then after reflection I go to the commentaries so to contrast the experience given by the direct reading with what the commentary is telling. This is a very slow process and I have seen that a single sutta keeps me meditating and reflecting for a long time.

I don't know if this is a correct procedure...

[Eltabaco]

@stuka - Bless you friend, I have nothing to add to your latest comment.

In case you had not noticed, ATC, you have entered an open debating forum to defend your own thesis. Your assertions have been found to be baseless, founded in speculations of Brahmins and poets, and without any recourse whatsoever to the Buddha's teachings. You might as well post your theses on The Brahmin Channel instead of The Buddhist Channel, because Brahminism is what you are expousing, and Brahminism is the doctrine you hold.

[ovenco]

@daverupa - I prefer reading commentaries, explanations and elaboration on the various discourses of the Nikayas rather than reading the actual discourses itself. It is just a personal preference I guess.

Yeah.

"So then, Bharadvaja, it seems that there isn't among the brahmans even one brahman who says, 'This I know; this I see; only this is true; anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the brahmans even one teacher or teacher's teacher back through seven generations who said, 'This I know; this I see; only this is true; anything else is worthless.' And there hasn't been among the brahman seers of the past, the creators of the hymns, the composers of the hymns... even one who said, 'This we know; this we see; only this is true; anything else is worthless.' Suppose there were a row of blind men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. In the same way, the statement of the brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men, as it were: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. So what do you think, Bharadvaja: this being the case, doesn't the conviction of the brahmans turn out to be groundless?"

[ZonaPutaX]

@daverupa - I prefer reading commentaries, explanations and elaboration on the various discourses of the Nikayas rather than reading the actual discourses itself. It is just a personal preference I guess.

With respect, I find this approach completely boggling ! The logical way to do it would be to first read the suttas and then afterwards the commentaries on them. A commentary could have been written by someone totally deluded about the meaning of a sutta ....how would you know if you hadn't read it? You'd then also be deluded too !.....and its this kind of approach that over time, loses all the meaning and impact of the Buddha's teachings.


.

[Xodvbooj]

and its this kind of approach that over time, loses all the meaning and impact of the Buddha's teachings.

True. In the past I was deeply into books that are commentaries about this and that. I will not give names but neither those nor that books worked even a little bit when trying to practice what were in them. I chose to go direct to the Pali... and a complete new world was found there; it has nothing to do with books written with commentaries.