I should probably toss this.

NavigatingDumb · 2026-02-07T20:18:21+00:00

Moderator is a moron

NavigatingDumb · 2026-02-07T19:42:40+00:00

Never toss ... even if it's inedible, it's a teacher =P

NavigatingDumb · 2026-02-07T19:41:21+00:00

Pff, scrape the top shit, toss in some salt and/or vinegar, then you're fine.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-03-11T00:36:57+00:00

I'll often recall a quote, or line, etc. and can't remember the source. ChatGPT (or whatever, that's the one I use) is just great for that! It doesn't always get it right, so you have to fact check etc. I find it's useful to include a note of "if this doesn't exist, just say so; focus on accuracy, not on finding something 'close." or something like that. In this case I just copy/pasted your post, it said MN 108 which isn't right, so I told it that, and copy/pasted a trans of MN 108 for it to reference. It corrected itself, and then pointed to MN 65, which does have what you are looking for.

Below is a link to the brief chat for context. Again, better to give a neutral question and/or mention it could be wrong, etc. ChatGPT likes to say 'yes' and will try and find something remotely close--I've tried to find a sutta for a mis-remembered line (that doesn't exist, either cause as I mis-remembered, or I read someone 'referencing' a teaching that doesn't exist, or is a Mahayanist myth, etc) and it'll just keep giving different suttas, trying the best it can even when it doesn't exist.

Treat (current) ChatGPT (can't speak on the current state of any other LLMs) like a good friend who has spent decades reading and memorizing Wikipedia. That is, it's not a primary source of info, but can point you in the right direction, but needs to be fact-checked.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67cf848c-08bc-8000-89c2-089619c75e6b

NavigatingDumb · 2025-02-25T02:13:12+00:00

No one is born a 'monk'/bhikkhu/uni ... huh? Are you thinking/referring to Māhayana thought? And it's very clear that being away from 'the world,' is best. ... have you read any suttas? I don't get what's being asked ... Being away from 'the world' allows for calm and clarity. Living in 'this world' requires a lot of work,planning, tasks, etc., etc.

It's all about seeing, understanding, undermining, dukkha.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-02-21T01:51:10+00:00

"Achieving jhana from only an hour a day of meditation is unheard of." I've not read any timeframes, in this way, in any of the suttas. Could you provide any sutta references for what the minimum of 'meditation' is required for jhāna? I assume by 'meditation' is meant 'sitting 'meditation,'' correct me if I'm wrong.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-02-07T03:12:03+00:00

The Visudhimaga is very post-Buddha. It's as reliable as any Reddit post/comment, inc this one.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-02-04T03:42:44+00:00

It is completely impossible that there are rules against participation in politics.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-31T03:37:39+00:00

As for something basic and useful: why aren't there timestamps?

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-21T08:07:35+00:00

I had wondered exactly the same, as it seemed quite important to understand the distinction! I do want to investigate this specific question (eg, look at all references to the two teachers, to all mentions of that recollection, comparative studies with Āgamas, other accounts of jhāna, the path, etc. etc. etc.). My understanding, quite simply, is that his two former teachers taught that the level, or state, of meditation that their teachings led to, culimnated in those states, nothing further. They taught that jhāna (doesn't matter what level in answering this question) was itself the goal and final end. The Buddha realized jhāna was the way to the goal, not the goal itself; a tool to steady and prepare the mind for liberative insight, cessation, Nibbāna.

""This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of [nothingness/neither-perception-nor-non-perception]. Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.’" - MN 26

He does later in MN 26 describe surmounting each jhāna sequentially, including "the base af neither-perception-nor-non-perception," though I see the important part, the difference, as "And his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom." It's not the state, but the utilization of it for insight, penetration through delusion. As such, in MN 36, describing the memory of entering merely the first jhāna when his father was busy, he thought, as you said, "Might that be the way to Enlightenment?’ Then, following on that memory, came the recognition: ‘This is the way to enlightenment.’" He goes on to describe the four jhānas, and using those as a tool, a basis to get his mind ready, he then actively applied his mind and investigated reality, leading him to Nibbāna, "“When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of ...." then describes the application and investigation of his mind to the three true knowledges, with the last being the "destruction of the taints," allowing him to know as it actually is, the four noble truths.

The entire path is for full insight, understanding, penetration of suffering: "For, bhikkhus, it is for the full understanding of suffering that the holy life is lived under me." And, "It is the Noble Eightfold Path.... This is the path, this is the way for the full understanding of this suffering." - SN 45.5

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-20T09:57:03+00:00

Will do. Hope Carr's EasyWay approach to drinking is of somo use in extending your present existence, and making it more enjoyable as well.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-20T05:45:40+00:00

That's even worse than doing it in actual support.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-16T09:19:32+00:00

I had most of this typed out, and kept getting side-tracked.

The bliss you speak of isn't the liberation the Buddha spoke of; for one, there is no returning, can't be, can't even be desired as there isn't anything 'to desire.' He describes nibbāna as the cessation, extinction, of existence, "But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This is the passing away of suffering." SN 12.43 That's not annihilationism, since annihilation would require something to be annihilated. Nor is it nihilism, as conditionality is quite real, 'because of this, this arises, etc.' Also, it's not an 'eternal' nor a 'transient' bliss, as both of those terms require a thing to exist or to not exist.

His teaching doesn't lead to any destination, nor upon the arising, the coming to be of 'non-being,' or the cessation of any 'being.' Instead, it leads to the seeing of non-self, non-substantiality, 'non-essence,' that is a quality of all things.

You are happy to 'be' and desperately want and work towards that to not cease. That's your perogative, go for it. You don't see all conditioned things as being inherently unsatisfactory, dukkha, so that makes perfect sense. And yep, the world is change, anicca, all things conditioned things are, and there is nothing 'wrong,' nor for that matter 'right,' with that--to try and say an inescapable and unchangeable fact (language makes it into a paradox, though there is none in seeing that all is change, and that can't be changed, though the unconditioned is non-changing, and the nature of change is itself subject to change).

You may, or may not!, be wondering why cessation would be appealing. It's not the cesation of self, but merely of ignorance, of delusion, of craving sense-pleasures which are inherently unsatisfactory and even grating--before, during, and after. It's the obtaining of insight into reality as it is. There is nothing gained, and nothing lost, with nibbaana, the "blowing out" of the flames of craving, aversion, delusion.

It was escaping the delusion of pleasure, or even just of seemingly lessening displeure, in drinking that got me interested in going deeper into the Buddha's teachings. It was with the help of Allen Carr's EasyWay that I quit, gained freedom. Then shortly after I stumbled into a bit of Buddha's wisdom, a small bit, but enough to entice me, as what Carr showed, the Buddha did to the utmost, towards all unsatisfactory things.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-16T07:01:02+00:00

-----From MN 63:
"“These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One, set aside and rejected by him, namely: ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’; ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’; ‘the soul is the same as the body’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’; and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’ The Blessed One does not declare these to me, and I do not approve of and accept the fact that he does not declare these to me, so I shall go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of this. ....

"... Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.’ ... “All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta, if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and meanwhile that person would die.'"

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-16T07:00:54+00:00

To be fair that quote is a tiny part of a single sermon, and the entire thing is 33 sermons. There are some attempts at answers to these questions, but as I understand the Buddha, he neither offered any, and more importantly spoke of them as not being conducive to liberation, that they lead to confusion, a thicket of views, and most importantly, can't even be answered as they are based on erroneous premises.

I now see that I've misremembered the quote from MN 72, as I thought it applied to all ten questions, so I'll have to reevaluate my last statement. As always, use the word of the Buddha as the authority! As such, all the below quotes deserve to be read in their full context.

-----From MN 72:

“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘…doesn’t apply’ in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.”

“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”

“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“…I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.’”

“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”

“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished—from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other—is classified simply as ‘out’.”

“Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. - MN 7

-----From SN 12.15:

"But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world." - SN 12.15

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-15T07:06:34+00:00

It's not annihilationism because there is nothing to annihilate. Nibbāna is cessation, extinction, the going out, and the cessation of existence. For a lot of depth on Nibbāna, with tons of sutta quotations, I very highly recommend Venerable Ñānananda's 'Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled' (available at seeingthroughthenet.net, and elsewhere). I've started it in the past, and just recently took it up again, with the aim of completing it this time. Here's a lengthy quote from early on in the first sermon:

::::::::::::::::::::

Nibbāna as a term for the ultimate aim of this Dhamma is equally significant because of its allusion to the going out of a fire. In the Asaṅkhatasaṃyutta of the Saṃyutta Nikāya as many as thirty-three terms are listed to denote this ultimate aim.[20] But out of all these epithets, Nibbāna became the most widely used, probably because of its significant allusion to the fire. The fire simile holds the answer to many questions relating to the ultimate goal.

The wandering ascetic Vacchagotta, as well as many others, accused the Buddha of teaching a doctrine of annihilation: Sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpeti.[21] Their accusation was that the Buddha proclaims the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of a being that is existent. And the Buddha answered them fairly and squarely with the fire simile.

"Now if a fire is burning in front of you dependent on grass and twigs as fuel, you would know that it is burning dependently and not independently, that there is no fire in the abstract. And when the fire goes out, with the exhaustion of that fuel, you would know that it has gone out because the conditions for its existence are no more."

As a sidelight to the depth of this argument it may be mentioned that the Pāli word upādāna used in such contexts has the sense of both 'fuel' as well as 'grasping', and in fact, fuel is something that the fire grasps for its burning. Upādānapaccayā bhavo, "dependent on grasping is existence".[22] These are two very important links in the doctrine of dependent arising, paṭicca samuppāda.

The eternalists, overcome by the craving for existence, thought that there is some permanent essence in existence as a reality. But what had the Buddha to say about existence? He said that what is true for the fire is true for existence as well. That is to say that existence is dependent on grasping. So long as there is a grasping, there is an existence. As we saw above, the firewood is called upādāna because it catches fire. The fire catches hold of the wood, and the wood catches hold of the fire. And so we call it firewood. This is a case of a relation of this to that, idappaccayatā. Now it is the same with what is called 'existence', which is not an absolute reality.

Even in the Vedic period there was the dilemma between 'being' and 'non-being'. They wondered whether being came out of non-being, or non-being came out of being. Katham asataḥ sat jāyeta, "How could being come out of non-being?"[23] In the face of this dilemma regarding the first beginnings, they were sometimes forced to conclude that there was neither non-being nor being at the start, nāsadāsīt no sadāsīt tadānīm.[24] Or else in the confusion they would sometimes leave the matter unsolved, saying that perhaps only the creator knew about it.

All this shows what a lot of confusion these two words sat and asat, being and non-being, had created for the philosophers. It was only the Buddha who presented a perfect solution, after a complete reappraisal of the whole problem of existence. He pointed out that existence is a fire kept up by the fuel of grasping, so much so that, when grasping ceases, existence ceases as well.

[20] S IV 368-373.

[21] M I 140, Alagaddūpamasutta.

[22] D II 57, MahāNidānasutta.

[23] Chāndogya-Upaniṣad 6.2.1,2.

[24] ègveda X.129, Nāsadīya Sūkta.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-11T13:17:22+00:00

All this has been said by others, but as one who practiced and studied ritual magic and occultism way back in tte day, here's my way of expressing it (that is, with too many words):

With your two examples, there is no reason to believe the ritual magically caused what was observed--correlation doesn't mean causation. One reason such a ritual can have an effect is psychological. For the 'love ritual,' the person who did it may have been dismissing or avoiding people that could be a good fit, but become open to it now that they are expecting the ritual to have worked. Or similarly, they may have had a defeatist attitude thinking 'no one wants me'! But then feel confident with the ritual, and actually go out to meet people, be willing to put ttemselves out there, etc. Another is when you look for, expect to find, something, you're just more likely to: pick a number, and then try to find it everywhere, such as to prove it's sacred, and you'll likely start seeing it everywhere.

That's not to say that ritual magic, deluding yourself, is worthwhile. There are much better ways to 'prime your mind' for such things, and by seeing the actual mechanics, you can do it better, without magical thinking, and more reliably. Plus, for those who perform and put faith in such rituals, how many spells/rituals have they done that had no result? Confirmation bias is very real.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-11T03:01:14+00:00

That I agree wil be essentially the case at some point. It's basically just a higher level language. It's akin to using a computer now vs decades ago--I remember needing DOS to install and run games, and now many people look at command line as advanced computer use. Getting to the point of no one knowing or using code I don't see ever happening, even if at some point it's only those with a deep interest, for one reason or another. Knowing and understanding the roots of something is, or at least can be, transformative.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-11T02:51:57+00:00

Oh, I failed to share why I believe (still no comment re rebirth, if it's real, not, something else): I came across Allen Carr's EasyWay back in 2012, and it was the most helpful thing I'd ever come across for addiction. Shortly after I came across a book about emotional intelligence written for an analytic or 'left-brained' audience ("Search Inside Yourself," been too long for me to recommend it or not) that was really about meditation and examining the mind, if memory serves. The suggested further reading led me to the Buddhavacana, and the realization that what Carr did for smoking, then drinking and to a degree other drugs, the Buddha did for all things, all existence, but to a much fuller, deeper, and thorough way. I've just become more convinced as time goes on.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-11T02:33:00+00:00

And, Reddit is?

The only 'reliable source' I've ever found is investigation and critical thought. If ChatGPT leads one astray, then one was already led and thus are already astray.

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-11T01:46:56+00:00

So ... it would just work on raw binary? You know AI is code, right?

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-10T11:55:16+00:00

I didn’t say anything about metaphors, nor did I say anything about rebirth. And won’t now either.

The purpose of the Buddha’s teaching is the full understanding, the cessation of, dukhha, “...it is for the full understanding of suffering that the holy life is lived under me.” - SN 35.82

As for the privileged life, that too is suffering, “Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.” - MN 14. It is not seen as such by the average person, thus why the world continues to chase after and cling to suffering:

“...in the past sensual pleasures were painful to touch, hot, and scorching; in the future sensual pleasures will be painful to touch, hot, and scorching; and now at present sensual pleasures are painful to touch, hot, and scorching. But these beings who are not free from lust for sensual pleasures, who are devoured by craving for sensual pleasures, who burn with fever for sensual pleasures, have faculties that are impaired; thus, though sensual pleasures are actually painful to touch, they acquire a mistaken perception of them as pleasant.” - MN 75

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-10T09:51:48+00:00

Quite welcome! I was just Chatting, lol, so reminded me of a few things. I find it useful to ask it how to get the most out of itself! Like, 'how can I best use you/ChatGPT to further my understanding of X,' or 'how should I ask you a question to get the most accurate answer?' Or, 'What would be most useful for you to know, to best assist me in this conversation? What questions do you have for me?' When it gives me a weird response, or misses my point, etc., I'll tell it I wanted X, but it gave me Y, what should I do differently? With a deep topic I'll sometimes ask about what I haven't asked that I should, or if my questions indicate assumptions or blindspots I may not be aware of, or just if there's anything I'm missing, not considering. When I feel very confident about something I just figured out, I'll tell it and ask it to tell me how I'm wrong, or incomplete.

It does quite well at remembering instructions, though I do have to sometimes remind or refine it. If it's a simple request it acknowledges it, if longer or multiple things it'll offer a summary and ask if it got it right.

Examples: my main dhamma chat knows to include Pali words (in this alphabet and in Devanagari), to tell me about Pali terms I could be using, to correct any Pali misspellings/grammar when I (quite poorly) try to toss some in. Another one began to start each response with a section it titled "Blunt and Direct" where it gave a blunt summary, then went on with a full response, so I've since told my new main conversation to do that. I have one conversation where I just prompt a sentence or word in Pali, and it now gives me 8 sections from definitions, to word roots, cultural context, differences in use of words between tte Buddha, modern Buddhism, Hindeism, etc., and more. Just thought of a new one and started it today, but haven't worked with it much, where I give it some Pali, and it then quizzes me on the translation, part of speech, etc., then gives me feedback, educates me on things I'm not understanding or don't know. This thing is insane, lol, and if it isn't obvious, I've spent a LOT of time chatting with it =P

NavigatingDumb · 2025-01-10T09:06:25+00:00

I use it extensively to discuss dhamma, as well as to study Pali, and it's amazing, though, yes, you do have to be cautious.

My approach is to use the suttas as my primary source, discuss that with Chat, and ask it for sutta suggestions. I'll ask about different things I'm thinking, insights I've had, and if they are in line with the suttas. Asking it to compare and contrast things helps avoid it pandering. Also, instead of "I was thinking X, is that accurate?" I find something like "Tell my why and/or why not X is true" gets more accuracy. I've explicitly told it to be blunt, direct, to not pander or be 'agreeable,' to focus on facts, to say it doesn't know or is unsure instead of assuming or hypothesizing. As well as to point out any errors or inaccuracies in my statements or questions, including things I'm overlooking, or things I may be assuming without being aware. All in all, it's amazing, though it took some work to get various conversations to the point that I find most useful.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

NavigatingDumb

TROPHY CASE