I’ve created a separate thread based on this discussion:
The MN is one of the most difficult to read and has been often corrupted (difficult to be certain which ones and to what extent) and with too much narratives. I found the narrative a diversion from the practical teachings.
I suggest to start with the Samyutta Nikaya Great Book - the Mahavagga (Samyutta 45 to 56): it gives direct, simple teaching on all the basic Dhamma concepts without much narrative.
2 Likes
Remember I am talking here as a lay person not as a monk.
There are many lay people who follow Buddhism and their only source of information is internet and books.
Thanks this confirms my argument that reading Sutta alone is not an easy task.
Yes, indeed!
- “Venerable sir, this is half of the holy life, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.”
- “Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda! This is the entire holy life, Ānanda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.
“… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ānanda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to aging are freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from death; beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair…”
SN 45.2
Well said Maiev; well said.
Metta
I know absolutely nothing about that sabhāva nonsense; but as far as Platonic idealism, or even better Kantian transcendental idealism can be related to that definition of yours; I suppose that one should look at the concept of avyākata (avyākṛta) more closely.
The “undeclared” has much more to mean, than a “something” (beyond nibbana,) that you cannot utter and define.
Avyākata is closely related to ignorance (āvijja). Avyākata calls for distinctions. It needs determination. It needs to sever (vyākṛ). It also needs a synergetic productive force amongst dhammas to bring the truth of the “Notion”.
Notion; namely what in philosophy is described as the 'truth in things". Like the seed is the notion of the tree. It contains the ideal truth of the tree, minus the environmental constraints the tree might encounter in its development.
Once the truth is found, (which in the case of Buddhism can be simply resumed to “ain’t good!”; then the task is to ākṛ (to bring together) this duality through the “neither, nor”; so as to reach vijja, nibbana, and consequently vyākata.
Again, the transcending of this duality by the “neither, nor” can be apprehended here.
Vyākata or (avyākata) is of no interest in Buddhism though, because - first it can’t be defined in words (being out of its range) - secondly, because its presence in the equation, would not be useful for the goal of escaping dukkha.
But it still have to be understood.
In Buddhism, there is no Platonic idealism, but Ignorance.
The “man” in Atman, (whatever continuous (at) activity (man) that is) - This At-man (continuous-activity / some say “thinking”?!?), that expands and pervades (Bṛh) everything (Brah-man), has no preditermined Platonic “idea” running around in its realm. As far as we are concerned, the “At/Bṛh man” is ignorant, and needs to put the undeveloped notion into an environmental context; it needs to laydown the notion on the philosophical “ground”.
There are no predetermined “ideas” floating around like in Plato. There is no ideal realm in avyākata.
Avyākata (whatever it is called - Atman or some other thing,) has one notion to be developped in paṭiccasamuppāda.
That is what concerns us.
Does the avyākata have only this notion to develop, or zillions of other notions at stake? - Is it you, is it me? is it nothing? - Who cares!
What concerns us is paṭiccasamuppāda (the development of that particular “notion”); and the knowledge to derive from that.
And once we have acknowledged the truth that Buddha has raised for us, the issue at stake is to get out of it (that is to say, out of the ignorance of the dukkha it yields).
And nāma represent the manifest (immaterial) part of this developed notion. Whose truth (thanks to nāma & rūpa,) that is utterly actualized through the realm of senses, is just that “it is full of dukkha” - And that, as long as you remain in the realms of senses, forms, and non-forms, it will remain so.
Metta
A bit more on Universals
To come back to Platonic universals, there are no general versions of properties found in common in the particular things. There are no classes of which instances are found in paṭiccasamupāda. These are found in mano only. Manas resides in the avyākata in Brahmanism; while in Buddhism, it resides in saḷāyatana (in the ajjhatikāni āyatanāni). A huge difference between Brahmanism and Buddhism. I have already developed the concept of "emergence" in quantum theory. For short, the zillion quantum indeterministic micro events are averaged into a deterministic macro event called mano. The same applies for stars that are made of micro indeterministic events that are averaged into Newtonian deterministic physics. To resume, mano is made of indeterminism and becomes deterministic. This deterministic nature in turn, takes control of the indeterministic. The mind/body problem is resolved. And the Platonic universals are just a mano problem. Not an avyākata one.Leibniz use to say: "“true in all possible worlds,” about logic and mathematics, that appeared to him appear to exist outside of space and time. By that he meant that truth was independent of the physical world (aka the kama loka world).
Humean philosophy call them “a priori” with condescension - yet, the new vision of the mind/body problem leaves us with the fact that these a priori, although independent of experience, are still abstracted from concrete experiences.
The question is: “where do these new (indeterministic) quantum concrete experiences, from which we abstract, in our mano, the a priori to be made synthetic, might come from?”
In other words, mano is looking at “what” has made it. But where and how do that “what” has come to be?
Late quantum physics, information theory, prebiotic chemistry, psychological role of probability, so on and so forth, have changed drastically the way to answer this question. And neither Humean, nor Russelian philosophy can answer that anymore. Not even Alan Turing.
As Dennet says in his last book:
"The real danger, I think, is … that we will over-estimate the comprehension of our latest thinking tools, prematurely ceding authority to them far beyond their competence….
But that’s another musing.
Hello all,
Nama-Rupa are conjoined according to EBTs, most of the time. This is best understood in context when understanding how perceptions work (MN 148)
We can consider the example of seeing a flower. When the flower (material object-Rupa), is seen by the eye (again, Rupa), consciousness arises at the eye (‘eye-consciousness’). Eye-consciousness merges or comes together with the the Rupa that arose. This gives rise to ‘contact’ (cakkhu-samphassa). This is a Nama component.
Contact then gives rise to feeling (vedana), labelling (sanna), and mental fabrications (sankhara) such as intension, contemplation etc. From contact onward it is all Nama components.
Considering the ‘mental’ quality (as opposed to material quality) of these factors as seen in their function Mental would seem to be a reasonably approximate translation of Nama IMO, as would Material for Rupa. Nama and Rupa could be that which is mental and material.
This should never be a dry discourse on various dhamma factors. The light from a flower (external Rupa), stimulates the eye (internal Rupa- eye sense base) and gives rise to consciousness at the eye (eye-consciousness). With coming together of these three (tinnang sanghati) an awareness of an image of a flower arises (contact -phassa) in the mind. If we dislike this flower, an unpleasant feeling vedana)arises, if we like it a pleasant feeling and if we are neutral towards it an equanimous feeling arises. When we recognise it as a flower perception/labelling (sanna) arises. If we intend of to take a photo of it, fabrications (Sankhara) arise
There is only one thing that arises in the mind at a time. The mind is a collection of those things arising one after the next. The quick succession of mental states give it an illusion of continuity, whereas in reality it is being formed anew. The above example shows how internal and external Rupa gives rise to mental states and hence ‘the mind’. Stimuli from the five senses keep ‘creating’ the mind throughout the day. For there to be a viable Self it should be Self extant. Something that is created anew, by a casual process, unceasingly, and which has no stable core, is not fit to be considered a Self. Seeing how the mind can arise from a material factor as it’s cause, further makes the mind unsuitable to be considered as Self.
Insight into not-Self is in time possible if Nama and Rupa a distinguished well, at the outset. This includes watching the arising of the five aggregates in the process of perceiving something, as it is happening. When we perceive something it seems and is, seamless. Yet like a printer printing in separate colours one after the next, layer by layer the mental (and material) factors add colour, brightness and meaning to that which is perceived, which it didn’t have in the first place, effectively ‘creating’ the world which we perceive and ‘inhabit’.
With metta
Mat
2 Likes
Yes that is how I understand it too.
There are Rupa and Nama-Rupa. (some say Nama can exist in it’s own which I do not believe)
It is like fire. Fire and the log should be co-exist. However log can exist in its own. When two sticks rub together fire arises.
When the eye (first log) contact with the object (second log) the eye consciousness (fire) arises.
Note that it’s a very specific sort of ignorance: non-knowledge in regards to the four noble truths, its ennobling tasks and its implications/outcomes in terms of eventuation of cessation of suffering.
1 Like
I suppose that the four Noble Truths could be called the “notion” of that ignorance.
If “notion” is the truth in things; then the notion, (the intrinsic truth of that ignorance,) is the four noble truths.
I was referring to the categorical statements on what is avijja in the context of Buddha’s teachings, such as the one found in MN9:
“When, friends, a noble disciple understands ignorance, the origin of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the cessation of ignorance, in that way he is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
“And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance?
Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering—this is called ignorance.
With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view…right concentration.
“When a noble disciple has thus understood ignorance, the origin of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the cessation of ignorance…he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma.”
This is found as well in SN38.9, SN22.126, SN56.17, SN12.2 (i.e. it is kosher for those averse to MN! 
).
1 Like
Hi @Gabriel_L ,
So? - What’s your point?
Might the ignorance be defined locally (SN 22.47) or more broadly; its “notion” remains that, wherever you find yourself (sensory realm, form realm, or formless realm,) not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering - is its definition (its intrinsic truth - the most important and relevant part of its “notion”).
But, truth is not just in the way one discovers about it; but about what that truth is, and how to use it. Soteriology does not stop at knowledge, but requires practice also. Buddhism is not Saṃkhya.
“There is intrinsic suffering” in the development of paṭiccasamuppāda.
The way paṭiccāsamuppāda develops, yields suffering.
The delusion is to believe that one could get rid somehow of that suffering (particularly while staying in the kama loka). As delusory than to believe that you could make a rock out of a seed.
But discovering ignorance (that is to say discovering how things are becoming, and are intrinsically developing into dukkha), is not the all shebang.
One has to get out of dukkha also. Otherwise, what would be the point?
You have to know the way leading to the cessation of suffering. And that is nissāraṇa for instance SN 22.82, SN 36.6, SN 5.1, AN 10.93, MN 148 [note in the latter, that I am not averse to MN].
And as far as nāma is concerned in all this, I would say that its manifested immaterial part involved in the process, would have to do primarily with feelings; and how we perceive or apperceive them. Both external and internal feelings.
Metta.
My point is that the EBTs define really well what avijja is about. I have seen people before misunderstand it with the broader definition of lack of knowledge or information as a whole, absence of general knowledge, understanding, or education.
I am not saying this is your case and I am just taking the opportunity to share with people this finding which made things so much clearer to me when I got to it. 
Just mind that the four noble truths don’t suggest we get rid of dukkha. The ennobling task associated to the noble truth of suffering is to fully understand it.
What we are to get rid of is the cause of suffering. This is what the second noble truth is all about, one is to abandon the causes of suffering.
Now, how does it all happen?
Again, the EBTs provide some very precise references for that.
In terms of big picture, or at a macro level, we can understand the process as an impersonal one (AN11.2 , AN10.2) or as a flow a proximate causation between specific elements to be made present in one’s heart (SN12.23).
At the micro level, as the development of the eightfold path peaks (i.e. the fulfillment of the fourth enobbling task) a specific process of vision and knowledge into the taints dependent on the attainment of a very deep sort of stillness causes the definitive abandonment of those taints and thus cessation of suffering (AN9.47).
The three basic taints (asava) are: taint of sensual delight (kāma), taint of becoming (bhava), taint of ignorance in regards to the four noble truths (avijjā) - SN38.8.
The Pali for the process through which the asavas are fully destroyed is:
Puna caparaṃ, āvuso, bhikkhu sabbaso nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ samatikkamma saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ upasampajja viharati, paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti.
Ettāvatāpi kho, āvuso, sandiṭṭhikaṃ nibbānaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā nippariyāyenā”ti.
On a provisory / preliminary basis, all deep stillness states prior to the aforementioned contribute to “dooming” further suffering towards its end by showing more and more to one’s mind how less is more when it comes to the path.
Outside the stillness events of such absorptions, suffering is gradually ceased by the gradual but definitive abandoning of the fetters which cause it of 1. self-identification views (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), 2. doubt/uncertainty (vicikiccha), 3. wrong grasping at precepts and practices (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), 4. sensual passion/desire (kāma-rāga), 5. ill will/resistance (vyāpāda), 6. passion/lust for form (rūpa-rāga), 7. passion/lust for formless phenomena (arūpa-rāga), 8. conceit (māna), 9. restlessness (uddhacca) and 5. ignorance/unawareness (avijjā).
Now, back to the topic. I make sense of nama by making it a basket in which I throw everything I cannot say to be rupa amidst my experience of suffering.
I do appreciate what Bhante Sujato said above about how possibly the concept of nama-rupa is something that would make more sense to the Indian people of 2,500 years ago, and how a contemporary reading of it would be close to the broad and non consensual mind-body dichotomy of nowadays. I don’t think I can contribute much more than that.
Sorry for the long reply.
7 Likes
Apart from the fact that your references are either purely Theravadan, or having their parallels in late MN or AN, I have a very hard time believing that one of the definition of Ignorance, might not “suggest we get rid of dukkha”.
As I said before, Buddhist soteriology is not just knowledge per se (as in Saṃkhya). The “way leading to the end of suffering” is not just yathābhūtañāṇadassana (lit: insight, from knowledge according to what have become,) and how that impermanence yields dukkha.
I have insisted on the “nissāraṇa for instance”.
You have also added the taints. Cool!
The following should suffice to understand them:
Taint - Āsava
What kind of person is one liberated-by-wisdom? Here some person does not contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms, but his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom. This kind of person is called one liberated-by-wisdom. I do not say of such a bhikkhu that he still has work to do with diligence. Why is that? He has done his work with diligence; he is no more capable of being negligent. SN 35.134 ---------- Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu does not dwell devoted to development, even though such a wish as this might arise in him: ‘Oh, that my mind might be liberated from the taints by nonclinging!’ yet his mind is not liberated from the taints by nonclinging. For what reason? It should be said: because of nondevelopment. Because of not developing what? Because of not developing the four establishments of mindfulness … the four right strivings … the four bases for spiritual power … the five spiritual faculties … the five powers … the seven factors of enlightenment … the Noble Eightfold Path. SN 22.101 ---------- Bhikkhus, by the destruction of the taints, in this very life I enter and dwell in the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, realizing it for myself with direct knowledge. SN 16.9/10/11 ---------- “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging. SN 22.45 ---------- With the extermination of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, that bhikkhu, resolving thus: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me,’ can cut off the lower fetters.”“Resolving thus, venerable sir, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters. But how should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur?”
“Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’
“Consciousness, bhikkhu, while standing, might stand engaged with form … engaged with feeling … engaged with perception … engaged with volitional formations; based upon volitional formations, established upon volitional formations, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion.
“Bhikkhu, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’ - that is impossible.
SN 22.55
And what are the taints, what is the origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way leading to the cessation of the taints? There are these three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being, and the taint of ignorance. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
…
When a noble disciple has thus understood the taints, the origin of the taints, the cessation of the taints, and the way leading to the cessation of the taints, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am,’ and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering.
MN9
And how, bhikkhus, should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur? Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born.
“Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.
SN 22.81
‘Friends, through an internal deliverance, through the destruction of all clinging, I dwell mindfully in such a way that the taints do not flow within me and I do not despise myself.’ Being asked thus, venerable sir, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, Sāriputta! This is another method of explaining in brief that same point: ‘I have no perplexity in regard to the taints spoken of by the Ascetic; I do not doubt that they have been abandoned by me.’”
SN 12.32
“What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation?”
“No, venerable sir.”
SN 12.51
Sisters, there are these seven enlightenment factors through the development and cultivation of which a bhikkhu, by realising for himself with direct knowledge, here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.
MN 146
This is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thousand bhikkhus were liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
SN 35.28 - SN 35.75 - SN 35.121
One who has expunged lust and hate
Along with the taint of ignorance,
Has crossed this ocean so hard to cross
With its dangers of sharks, demons, waves.
SN 35.229
If there are no cause in Buddhism, there are no effect. So getting rid of the cause of dukkha, is getting rid of dukkha.
Your argumentation is a bit sophistic.
I don’t know if the Indian people of 2,500 years ago, that lived around Buddha, were all allowed to read the Kānva shākha (ŚBr., BṛĀr.Up.) for instance; but I doubt that there would have been a manas/kaya problem for the lucky ones who had done so.
The Self was too much of a continuous & pervasive nature, to allow such speculation.
Saṃkhya, among the astika-mata (orthodox schools,) might have been the only darsana to have introduced some kind of duality at that level (and put mano in prakṛti [matter]). The question remains: “was Saṃkhya pre or post Buddhist?”.
I had made for myself, this little visual aid about Saṃkya long ago. It is from the Saṃkhyakarika.
Yet, in Buddhism, there is still a citta/body problem, (not exclusively part of nāmarūpa,) that is still to be resolved for some, and evident for others. And here, I mean body (kaya) as “organ”; that is to say, which includes also the unmanifested bodhi, for instance.
In that sense, not only would I agree with bikkhu Sujato, about the fact that body is more than rūpa; but I would even extend it to the unmanifested.
So, although the wordly mind/body problem (aka mano/kaya,) has been settled through late quantum physics; we are still, as Dennet says in his last book, in the “Cartesian Theater”.
In other words, the khandhas in nāma, (both in the nāmarūpa nidāna, and in satta,) are not of the same lineaments than the khandhas in the unmanifested (namely the unmanifested consciousness, synergetic forces, perception and feeling).
Anidassana/Anidarśana ([Un]Manifest)
PALI:
Anidassana
A:
A negative particle
Nidassana:
（nt．） [Sk．nidarśana，ni+dassana] “pointing at” evidence，example，comparison，apposition，attribute，characteristic； sign，term.
SANSKRIT:
निदर्शन nidarśana [agt. nidṛś]
निदृश् nidṛś [ni-dṛś]
- to cause to see, show, point out, introduce, indicate (MBh.)
नि ni
- in, into, within.
√दृश्dṛṣ
- to see, behold, look at, regard, consider (RV., AV., ŚBr., MBh.)
- to see by divine intuition, think or find out, compose, contrive (BR)
- to be shown or manifested (MBh.)
दृष्टि dṛṣṭi
- Seeing, viewing, beholding (also with the mental eye) (BR)
- Sight, the faculty of seeing (ŚBr.)
Cool. I was not intending on advocating anything to you but just calling others’ attention to the fact that there are categorical explanations in the EBTs (not only in Pali) about such things and processes.
We are all free to do as we wish when it comes to our own non-physical maps of the path. And the ennobling task is as clearly put as it can be: it is up to us to verify such things. Best of luck to us all. 
Categorical what?
Yeah! I suppose so.
There is also a “categorical” definition of nibanna , that goes like this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned.
But then again, you have to go through the all path to reach it. (SN 43.12)
As I said, you have soldiers of the “light” buddhists, tantric buddhists, protestant buddhists, bros of the lodges buddhists, mahayana buddhists, theravada buddhists, transhumanist buddhists, zorba the buddha buddhists, second life buddhists, BDSM buddhists, whatever buddhists, etc, etc. (that speak almost the same parrot language) - and then you have just “Buddhists”, that go “categorical” AND further, with the EBTs with parallels.
You have been given me a load of sectarian (Theravadan) references like SN 12.23. What do you want me to do with that?
Also, when did I deny that Ignorance was not knowing the four Noble truths?
However, I also look at SN 22.126
Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling does not understand form subject to arising as it really is thus: ‘Form is subject to arising.’ He does not understand form subject to vanishing as it really is thus: ‘Form is subject to vanishing.’ He does not understand form subject to arising and vanishing as it really is thus: ‘Form is subject to arising and vanishing.’ He does not understand feeling … perception … volitional formations … , consciousness subject to arising … subject to vanishing … subject to arising and vanishing as it really is thus: ‘Consciousness is subject to arising and vanishing.’
“This is called ignorance, bhikkhu, and in this way one is immersed in ignorance.”
Or this one: SN 12.29
Here, friend, the uninstructed worldling does not understand as it really is the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. This, friend, is called ignorance, and in this way one is immersed in ignorance.
SN 22.129
Etc. And they all have parallels in the SA.
So “verify” what?
And if you are “not intending on advocating anything to me”; then don’t call on me.
It is going to be a lot less stressful.
Now you are right! - each one its own kamma.
1 Like
I was referring to things pertaining to the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. The task related to it is to verify it for ourselves (sachikata is the Pali).
I don’t understand what you mean by “be a lot less stressful”. This conversation has been not stressful at all to me.
As I take you as a friend in Dhamma I always assume you are writing from a place of active endeavor towards the cultivation of right thought - renunciation (nekkhamma), friendliness (metta) and non-violence (avihimsa).
Also, please don’t misunderstand me. When I posted my reply I was unmindful and pressed the reply button right below your post. That’s why it is shown as me addressed to you. Sorry for the trouble! Next time I will avoid doing so over your posts so you don’t take my posts as personal objection, I have nothing but thoughts of friendliness and non-violence towards you, trust me!
Last but not least, let us remind ourselves that people with the aim of not making the experience of this forum more stressful than it needs to be (as part of our non-awakened experience) took the time to put together a set of guidelines for conversation to occur here. I am always re-reading it to make sure I don’t break the etiquette here - if we do not adhere to it we give mods the right to suspend us!
1 Like
You certainly did not, after pushing that button.
When I posted my reply I pressed the reply button right below your post. That’s why it is shown as me addressed to you.
2 Likes
I appreciate if you stay with the topic.
1 Like
Hi @suci1 and @Gabriel_L and everyone
How’s it going? I haven’t had time to read everything here but having a quick look…it seems you are getting into a robust discussion about suffering and it’s causes.
We can broadly define ourselves as spiritual companions here. It’s not a bad thing to have a strong discussion with spiritual companions about the nitty gritty of the concepts that are important to us.
However, with the greatest respect, I’d like to point out that if you’re finding yourself coming from Wrong Intention (even if it’s a teeny tiny bit), you’re missing the point. That is, you’re getting lost in talking about Practice, instead of actually doing it.
It’s extremely important (and interesting) to find out what feels right about the Dhamma and what therefore constitutes Right View. After all, without getting this first Path Factor “Right”, we’re always going to be headed on the Wrong Path.
But…we can’t force each other to adopt another view. It’s not just Wrong in terms of the 8 Fold Path, it’s wrong by other standards too!
Memory’s a tricky thing (and mine seems to be getting worse) but if I remember correctly, there have been times on this forum when I’ve advocated (directly or indirectly) for people and their posts, when they have been saying something that I completely disagree with and even feel is Wrong View. Because it’s Right View to be kind. Let that always be the first Rule and if you ever break it, own up! I try and make it my first rule, but I’m imperfect in keeping it and I try to own up when (not if!) I break it.
If you’re coming from kindness and a sense of letting go around how your words will be taken, and you can maintain this intention during your discourse, then disagree away! Otherwise, be warned! Kamma will get you! 
Anyway, my personal opinion is, that deeper debates and questions work best face to face. Online forums can lend themselves to a false sense of being safe because no one can see our faces…and we let ourselves speak in a manner we might not engage in if that other person were facing us. But it’s not safe to be like this. We’re still having to deal with the internal consequences of our mind states and we’re responsible for putting harsh (or even a little bit harsh) words out there into the world for others to either emphasise or be hurt by. Sure you can be firm, but pull yourselves back from the edge.
Online forums are great for sharing your views and knowledge. But leave it at that. Debate a bit if you like, if there’s something you feel you’re genuinely going to learn or you feel that there’s something you can genuinely give. Otherwise, leave it. Let readers take what they want or don’t want. Let them decide.
And with the deeper aspects of the Dhamma, it has to be like this. It has to be personal. It has to be up to each one of us to find our own way. And we need to feel safe in doing this. Don’t attack others on this forum please…not even in subtle ways. I’m not saying either of you or anyone is doing this. Let’s just be careful we don’t even look down in that direction, let alone walk along that Wrong Path.
With much metta and good wishes for a fruitful debate based in love. Think hearts and flowers people. Hearts and flowers…oh…and smiley faces too… These little things are so devalued and misunderstood in this world, yet they can make all the difference in the world. 
With lots of love.
6 Likes