The stream of the Dhamma

The Watercooler
21

Hmmm I’m quite puzzled by this statement. All my readings of dependent origination, dependent liberation and causality, seem to have covered every permutation. Are you certain that you haven’t missed something in your readings?

IMHO it’s not worth jumping down ‘rabbit holes’ like this as it dilutes focus and ‘right effort’ as @Matt was saying earlier. First penetrate the teachings, and then ask specific questions of skilled teachers, to whom you have ample access.

From my perspective there is enough work to do on lessening hindrances, watching the arising and passing of thoughts, feelings and consciousness, concentrating on virtue etc, without wasting time meandering through the forest of thought formations without necessity.

I only point this out since, you do appear sincere in wanting to penetrate the end of suffering.

Please take this as it is intended, a gentle reflection.

Metta :dharmawheel::anjal::dharmawheel:

1 Like
22

Perhaps, I should attempt to clarify what I meant. There are many ‘cause and effect’ relationships that are the focus of interest in other fields of inquiry.

For example, in climate science, they are concerned about the cause/effect relationship between the carbon-cycle and climate. In neoclassical economics they are interested in the cause/effect relationship between supply and demand etc.

What I was asking about was ‘if’ another kind of cause and effect relationship that has an impact on our lives - other than kamma - was present in the EBT’s?

‘Dependent origination’ is only one cause and effect theme explored in the early teachings. Of course, it’s an important one. It’s a unique and brilliant gift given to us by the Buddha.

Another important and recurring theme in the suttas is the relationship between morality, samadhi and, liberating insight. The teachings are riddled with different forms of cause and effect analyses.

"If a monk would wish, ‘May I attain — whenever I want, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now,’ then he should be one who brings the precepts to perfection, who is committed to inner tranquillity of awareness, who does not neglect jhana, who is endowed with insight, and who frequents empty dwellings.

“If a monk would wish, ‘May I — with the ending of mental fermentations — remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having directly known & realized them for myself in the here-&-now,’ then he should be one who brings the precepts to perfection, who is committed to inner tranquillity of awareness, who (does not neglect jhana), who is endowed with insight, and who frequents empty dwellings.” - Akankha Sutta

1 Like
23

Dear @laurence , please edit the quote in your post as it looks as though it was said by me. I would never say such a thing :slightly_smiling_face:

You can do this by doing an edit, deleting my name and putting in yours, or by deleting the whole quote, and going back to the source quote in your post and pasting that.

If you read my post more carefully, you will see that I said

1 Like
24

Sorry about that, I should have copied the extract from my post as it was part of my response.

1 Like
25

Stream is also defined as the Eightfold Noble Path comprised of it’s constituents;
(SuttaCentral)

What is the stream?”
“Sir, the stream is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.”
What is a stream-enterer?”
“Sir, anyone who possesses this noble eightfold path is called a stream-enterer, the venerable of such and such name and clan.”

I am not sure if it is correct to do so but the stream enterer could be explained to be two-fold by the 8-fold classification of Ariya;

(SuttaCentral)
The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry

The one who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry is also two-fold by the 7-fold classification of Ariya;

(SuttaCentral)
a Dhamma-follower, and a faith-follower

I think that therefore the Stream[Path] is also two-fold mundane and Noble;

(SuttaCentral)
Right View that is a Path Factor and Right View that is with defilement
Right Resolve that is a Path Factor and Right Resolve that is with defilement
Right Speech that is a Path Factor and Right Speech that is with defilement
Right Action that is a Path Factor and Right Action that is with defilement
Right Livelihood that is a Path Factor and Right Livelihood that is with defilement

Right Concentration is also two fold;

(https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html
Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path
SuttaCentral)

  1. Right Concentration which is a development of Noble Right Concentration
  2. Right Concentration which is a Path Factor, any Unification of Mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness

Therefore i think that Entering the Stream can be explained to be two-fold;

  1. Entering the orderliness of rightness, entering the plane of people of integrity, transcending the plane of the run-of-the-mill
  2. Entering the Noble Eightfold Path, wherein there is the Unification of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness;
    Thus attaining the Deathless;

(SuttaCentral)
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view … right concentration.”

2 Likes
26

I think this is a useful way of looking at it because it stirs up manly effort and heroism, making the tedious grind of our proper conditioning somewhat more epic.

I personally take these things quite literally but i acknowledge the limitations of my direct experience in regard to these beings. If i crave a pizza or want to take a shower when i am supposed to be meditating i do not automatically assume that there is an army of Maras mind controlling me, i believe that the prior conditioning of habitual tendencies is a perfectly reasonable explanation with which i am content for all practical purposes but i can’t see these beings and therefore i can not be sure. Either way i just do my best to control the thoughts and developing the mind properly so that even if someone was to try to assail me they would not be successful in that.

I have been called a fundamentalist and i take those Mara things quite literally so perhaps i can answer your question.

As i see it;

  1. I think that I am rightfully called fundamentalist because;
    a) quick to call out what i perceive to be revisionist efforts
    b) somewhat bent on conformity to orthodoxy of interpretations for the sake of orderliness
    c) favor full measures rather than half-measures in the implementation

  2. I think i am rightfully called literalist because;
    a) i take it on faith that Sutta are to be interpreted literally until proven otherwise
    b) i am quite bent on working out the exact meaning of the expressions in the literary content

I think my approach has served me well overall.

The only concern and a frequent cause for regret is being overly zealous and self-righteous based on flawed or incomplete information or interpretations. As i learn more, i inevitably see more flaws and inadequacies of previous expression, inference and interpretations. In regards to this cause (study) and effect (seeing inadequacies) relationship i am seeing diminishing returns but i don’t think i will ever see the end of it. I am not sure how to handle it but i have been humbled by these realizations and do try be more careful.

2 Likes
27

If it works for you that’s fine! I prefer womanly effort and heroism.

"Just as a mother protects with her life, her child, her only child

So, with a boundless :heartbeat: one should cherish all living beings." - Metta Sutta

All living beings includes an unconditional love of ourselves - as we are. We should not despise any being in any state. This soft and kind approach to practice leads to a sense of well-being and a joyful disposition. This makes samadhi unavoidable. This makes awakening a real possibility.

When we are younger we may be able to rough-it a bit better. We may need to change the pitch of practice as we get older and, more frail. When we are not in the best of health a few cushions and a cup of warm broth may be skillful and appropriate etc.

Ditto :heart_eyes:

I found your reflection very clear and beautiful and, I don’t disagree with any of it.

However, I am certainly not a fundamentalist or, a literalist. I am not convinced that you are - either.

But, if you want to call yourself a fundamentalist knowing full-well everything implied in this term then, that’s your call. :heart_eyes:

1 Like
28

i meant manly as in humanly :innocent:

2 Likes
29

As a result of all the many, many, many instances where my ‘views’ have changed, I am thankful, as it shows the unreliability of ‘views’, and impermanence of things I believe I know (knowledge). I am thankful to the many, many, many blows to my ego, that I have received, this all helps me to understand my own delusions, and defilements, and to see “self” as a conditioned thing and nothing more.

As @laurence said, having compassion for all beings in samsara and subject to suffering, includes compassion to ourselves, as we too struggle, and make our way along the path.

Metta to all :anjal::dharmawheel:

6 Likes
30

As i see it fundamentalism is an abstract term without a universal definition so i don’t really mind it unless specified to mean something particular that i do not think is found in me. Furthermore i think that In many ways it can be explained that being a fundamentalist in the Dhamma is a compliment and a good thing so i never took offense.

31

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief

I don’t believe fundamentalism is a good idea - or compatible with the Dhamma - for a number of reasons.

Firstly, fundamentalists believe that literal meanings and ‘truth’ - as in realisation - is much of a muchness.

Secondly, they are inclined to think about their teachings in a very :dog2:-matic way. They have (no) room for interpretations of teachings that do not conform with their dogma.

You seemed to imply that you are on a learning-curve, with more to discover and, your understanding is subject to revision as your practice deepens?

This revisionism based on changing experience and understanding - as you go along - is not really a fundamentalist notion.

You sound like a very open-minded person who doesn’t claim to have all the answers.

You’re somebody who is willing to entertain the possibility that you could be wrong about many things and, that’s not a troubling thought.

Fundamentalists don’t like it - at all - if you suggest their ideology is mistaken or, should be subject to revision in the light of new insights.

It might be best to broaden your definition of fundamentalism so it doesn’t exclude the dark-side? :blush:

32

I see your point and it is a valid one. I did not think about it in such a practical sense. I guess in that sense i would consider myself fundamentalist in regards to the fundamentals of my understanding even tho i am open to enhancing that understanding of the fundamentals.

However if being a fundamentalist is explained to require a belief that one has a perfect understanding of the doctrine in it’s entirety and none of it is open to revision, in that sense i am not a Fundamentalist.

In the Sutta even Ven. Sariputta was at least on one occasion reprimanded for his statement by the Buddha, how much more would i be criticized…

1 Like
33

Then, your not a fundamentalist - I hope your not disappointed?

Fundamentalists are notorious for their dogmatic insistence that they are right and, everybody else is wrong. They aren’t open to the possibility that they could be wrong. You aren’t like that - are you?

If it quacks like a duck…

34

I am glad to learn some new definitions and am not disappointed. I do however think that very few would fit the description of thinking that they have an infallible interpretation of the doctrine in it’s entirety.

There are things which i am researching and on these matters i entertain various conflicting ideas. Even in regards to things that i do not take on faith due to having direct experience i am open to being to a certain degree wrong in my expression, understanding and explanation of them.

That being said i know some people who would certainly say that i am a very dogmatic fundamentalist (according to their definition) and am fixated in wrong view but it does not make it true of course.

1 Like
35

Then, you have an open-mind and you aren’t dogmatic about your fundamental rightness.

Do you get it?

Maybe you need to talk to a local-group of fundamentalists or, go online and, peruse their uplifting vision of the world.

You can choose from Buddhist-type fundamentalism, with it’s intolerance and divisiveness and, go through the list of similar belief-systems in all the major religions.

I also include ‘militant atheism’ and, ‘scientism’ in my list of fundamentalist belief-systems, as do many atheists.

1 Like
36

Yes i get why you would say that.
However if someone was to say that the expression;
‘2+2=4’ is always false.
I would argue that it is a false statement because it can be falsified and that only that was true and everything else was worthless. Thinking that i have reached a definite conclusion i would to that extent be a fundamentalist in regards to that. Perhaps your definition of fundamentalism does not apply to definite conclusions which can not be falsified.

Do you think that a Buddha is a Fundamentalist in regards to the Dhamma?

37

These are interesting topics that deserve careful reflection - IMO.

I am happy to continue this conversation with you as I feel we would both benefit from the discussion.

I am a bit concerned that we may be deviating from the general theme of the thread.

Perhaps, we could continue in P.M. mode - if you feel so inclined.

That’s correct - I’ve never heard a definition of ‘fundamentalism’ that remotely resembles this - not even close.

1 Like
38

Feel free to message me if you feel so inclined. I will say this tho;
I think that we can discuss the definition of fundamentalism for a long time but we won’t be able to pin it down as a truth or reality because Fundamentalism is an abstract term and it’s referent does not exist in nature as a real entity, therefore it’s exact scope and defining characteristics can not be worked out.

39

I am not sure if that was the point of our chat - was it?

I agree, truth is in a different ball-park!

However, we can aim at a reasonable definition with reference to the common usage of the term.

It has nothing to do with equations and mathematical proofs. As interesting as that may be, we will need to use other words and definitions to discuss that topic.

Unfortunately, I am unlikely to be of much use when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics.

I know that Wittgenstein - who was a student of B. Russell - did not agree with your statement about mathematical absolutes.

I am interested in your line of reasoning. I don’t know how to initiate a P.M.?

40

You click on the persons personal icon next to their name (such as on the ‘green L’ for laurence). A link to their public information comes up. Then click on the box that says Message - viola you have instigated a personal message.

4 Likes