I suspect I have a lower regard for a lot of that so-called “higher” dhamma than you do. Often what is true in it can be stated more clearly in other ways. But there is also a lot of nonesense.
Here it is, from MN 137:
"‘There are three frames of reference that a noble one cultivates, cultivating which he is a teacher fit to instruct a group’: thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?
"There is the case where the Teacher — out of sympathy, seeking their well-being — teaches the Dhamma to his disciples: ‘This is for your well-being, this is for your happiness.’ His disciples do not listen or lend ear or apply their minds to gnosis. Turning aside, they stray from the Teacher’s message. In this case the Tathagata is not satisfied nor is he sensitive to satisfaction, yet he remains untroubled, mindful, & alert. This is the first frame of reference that a noble one cultivates, cultivating which he is a teacher fit to instruct a group.
"Furthermore, there is the case where the Teacher — out of sympathy, seeking their well-being — teaches the Dhamma to his disciples: ‘This is for your well-being, this is for your happiness.’ Some of his disciples do not listen or lend ear or apply their minds to gnosis. Turning aside, they stray from the Teacher’s message. But some of his disciples listen, lend ear, & apply their minds to gnosis. They do not turn aside or stray from the Teacher’s message. In this case the Tathagata is not satisfied nor is he sensitive to satisfaction; at the same time he is not dissatisfied nor is he sensitive to dissatisfaction. Free from both satisfaction & dissatisfaction, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert. This is the second frame of reference…
"Furthermore, there is the case where the Teacher — out of sympathy, seeking their well-being — teaches the Dhamma to his disciples: ‘This is for your well-being, this is for your happiness.’ His disciples listen, lend ear, & apply their minds to gnosis. They do not turn aside or stray from the Teacher’s message. In this case the Tathagata is satisfied and is sensitive to satisfaction, yet he remains untroubled, mindful, & alert. This is the third frame of reference that a noble one cultivates, cultivating which he is a teacher fit to instruct a group.
"‘There are three frames of reference that a noble one cultivates, cultivating which he is a teacher fit to instruct a group’: thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
~
And here this is, from MN 4:
“Now, brahmin, it might be that you think: ‘Perhaps the recluse Gotama is not free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still resorts to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.’ But you should not think thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations.”
2 Likes
And what is the benefit to future generations that comes from retreat into remote jungle thickets?
To show he practices what he preaches and set an example for others to follow. I find it inspiring.
2 Likes
But if he is already enlightened, then he doesn’t actually need to retreat into the forest or “practice” in any way, no? So he’s just faking it? Pretending to be a good meditator even though meditation no longer brings him any improvement to his already-perfected state?
I see nothing beneficial for myself or others that can come from following such lines of thought, whether internally or in dialogue. So this is where I get off.
You missed the last paragraph quoted in that message:
“Now, brahmin, it might be that you think: ‘Perhaps the recluse Gotama is not free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still resorts to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.’ But you should not think thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations.”
It would be strange for one to ask others to retreat into remote jungle thickets but never do so himself. Some would say “why doesn’t he do that himself but only asks that of us ? is he incapable of doing that?” etc.
1 Like
And still, you have not pointed out the things you disagree regarding Buddha opinion about how the world works. Truth always rises to the surface in a debate. If one believes he is right about a point, why would he shy away from a debate ?
If it is materialism that is your problem, then I have to ask you the following question: On what scientific evidence do you base your belief that consciousness will cease to exist after death and will never reappear again ? In order to know when consciousness will cease, you need to know where it originated from. You need to know the mechanism through which it originated. Otherwise it might just appear again through the same mechanism that it did so the first time.
All that you know is that consciousness has material form as it’s support, the same thing that Buddha said too. The fact that consciousness is interdependent with material form is all that you actually know.
Giving this, is it correct to say that you base your materialist beliefs on evidence or are they based on nothing more than dogma or intuition ? You have zero evidence, zero explanation behind your reasoning. You don’t even attempt to explain how consciousness originated from matter, you accept from the start that you have no explanation behind your beliefs, you don’t even pretend to have one. But it just seems intuitive to you that such is the case, it just feels correct. And yet, people used to believe the world is flat based on intuition. Was it a good thing for them to make assumptions about the world based on intuition and blind dogmatism ? I don’t think so. I think they should follow logic, not intuition.
1 Like
I don’t feel comfortable about expressing my opinions freely. This is a religious community. There are boundaries. It’s become clearer to me lately that many people have a great deal emotonally invested in the preservation of an outlook that comforts them and gives them the kind of hope they need, and I don’t want to be responsible for disconcerting them with critical worries. I talk too much as it is, and really should keep more opinions to myself.
I think it is somewhat naive to think truth rises to the top in religious debates. Thousands of years of religious history suggests otherwise.
2 Likes
During Buddha times, there was a debating hall in every village. If you are on a Buddhist forum, you should expect people to believe in buddhism on that forum and should not be surprised when they express a buddhist opinion or argue for a point made by buddhism. If they disagreed with the buddha and were materialist or postmodernist or etc. they would be on a different forum.
I don’t understand why you are so shy. Every time you are asked about what you feel the Buddha got wrong, you shy away. If Buddha was indeed enlightened, his opinions should whitstand the scrutiny of logic. Buddhist in Buddha time never shied away from debates. We see monks eagerly going to the debating hall every morning.
And this is a good attitude to have regardless of ones beliefs. An intelectual honest person would never shy away from a debate. On the contrary, a person believing he is in the right would be open to a debate. Only a person knowing that he has no chance in a debate would shy away from one.
If one is too shy and very closed to debates, it will be impossible to traverse the jungle of views. That is a recepy for clinging to views. Don’t be shy making a case for materialism, it’s not the first time somebody made a case for materialism on a buddhist forum. It won’t make anyone have a hearth attack. That is not an excuse to shy away from a debate and run to a circle-talk materialist safe-space where one is free from different points of view regarding materialism.
Look, I just had a week long, and very detailed, debate about my views on what is known and what is not known about the relationship of consciousness to the physical world. If you are interested, you can look it up. I have had long debates on similar topics over the past few months. I’m tired.
Also, I don’t think these debates are really helping anybody. I think you are mistaken about the role of debate on the Buddhist path. Very few of the suttas represent debates. They portray teaching given to people who place their entire faith in the Blessed One.
The suttas also contain stories about people throwing themselves off cliffs and cutting their throats. This is serious business. Some people are in a place where life is only endurable because of the Buddhist teachings and they way they construe those teachings and their own personal experiences according to their faith. I’m not going to be responsible for barging into that faith territory and screwing with their confidence.
I propose you the following mental exercise:
Imagine a person comes to you and says “I believe matter originates from perception, therefore, if I don’t look at the chair behind me, the chair doesn’t exist”
Then, you ask the person if he has any scientific evidence for that and he says he has none. You then ask “Ok, ok, but do you have at least some kind of explanation, at least some kind of theoretical idea that makes you believe that ?” And he replies that he has none. You then ask him “But in this case, why do you believe this ?” And he replies “Well, that’s just what my intuition tells me. It is on intuition that I base my belief”.
What would you conclude about such a person ? Would you just jump in the same boat too and say “yup, matter originates from perception. If I don’t look at the chair, the chair doesn’t exist” ? Would you just believe any random person that comes to you and tell you an idea, or would you question those ideas, try to put them under the scrutiny of logic, etc ? What do you do when you are faced with different ideas ? Do you investigate them or do you just start believing in them the next minute ?
I hope you understand now why many people find it hard to believe in materialism. Sure, it might seem intuitive to you, but some people need more than intuition to believe in something. Based on intuition, people used to believe the world is flat.
What I have noticed on buddhist forums is that by far the most closed-to-debates persons are materialist. You’ll never see a materialist try to make a point cause there is just no point to make, his belief is based purely on intuition. He doesn’t even pretend to have an explanation, he openly accepts that his belief is based on intuition. And this is why they all shy away from any kind of debate. Look at Daverupa in that recent topic about critical thinking. I can see how it is so frustrating to have a strong intuition that an idea is correct, but to have zero arguments for it, just inuition. You would love to have at least a small little argument to write, but all you have is just intuition.
You’ll have to play in the debating hall by yourself. I’m done.
As I’ve said, you’ll never see a materialist making a rational case for his beliefs. He will just state “my views are right, you’re views are wrong” but will never present any arguments, cause all he has is intuition, and you can’t put intuition into words.
It is the million time I see this happening on buddhist forums. Every time I ask something about materialism, people run away. And it is them that accuse you of dogmatism…
As I said, I just wrote multitudes of paragraphs over the past week, right here on this very website, about the mind-body problem. I have no interest in repeating them. You can look them up.
Have you wrote anything about the mechanism through which consciousness originates from matter ?
I know consciousness and material form are interdependent, that is what Buddha stated too. The thing you are stating differently from the Buddha is that consciousness originated from matter. I have seen you write nothing about how that might be so.
You can fix the problem of neuroplasticity by saying “there was a badabing badabung and now we have consciousness, and this consciousness behaves like this and indeed modifies matter. And we also have things like the placebo effect where immaterial things such as a belief modifies matter, etc”. In this way you avoid the fact that neuroplasticity contradicts the causality proposed by materialism.
…But you are now faced with the problem of the badabing badabung. How did that badabing badabung happen ? Was it magic ? Was it God ? Was it the Spaghette monster ?
I have never defended the claim that cosciousness originates in matter.
So you do not believe in materialism ? In what way is your belief about how the world works different than the Buddha then ? Do you believe in postmodernism or solipsism or what exactly ?
Please stop bothering me.
You said Buddha was wrong about how the world works. I expected to at least name the points on which you disagree with him…