Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas

[tiltbillings]

(with a modicum of study included).

You are understating things a bit, I would dare say.

Your textual knowledge is, indeed, impressive, but in terms of the scholar/practitioner - and not just the one in favor over the other.

[mikenz66]

Hi BlackBird,

BlackBird: first time you've let loose since heading home. Did the Sri Lanka experience influence your opinion?

I had actually become convinced that the traditional method was barking up the wrong tree some time before I departed. My time over there helped solidify my conviction. In any case, a further discussion here would seem to serve little purpose. My only hope is that the seeds of doubt have been sowed that may bear fruit in critical thought and evaluation.

Do you mean that your doubt will bear fruit in the future, or that you are trying to instil doubt in others?


Mike

[BlackBird]

It would be interesting if you were to expand a little Jack...

Hi Peter.

If there was discovered a device which could detect with 100% accuracy whether someone was ariyan or not, a bit like a metal detector, and they detected all Theravadin Bhikkhus, nuns and lay people, it is my conviction that they would find not a single ariyan amongst those practicing the traditional method. Once the results of such an extensive and hypothetical experiment were published, do you think people would still follow the system? Probably not. Some (especially those of a religious nature) might abandon Buddhism altogether, because for many Buddhism is simply another system like Christianity, there to provide meaning and reason in a meaningless, absurd and unreasonable world. Others, particularly those with a cultural attachment would probably continue along as if nothing had happened, putting it all down to some 'dark' later stage in Buddhism. Some might even convert to pure-land Mahayana. A few however, might be encouraged by this news, a closure of sorts to long held and perhaps repressed concerns. They might feel a new sense of freedom, of possibility, they might be inspired, delving back into the suttas, trying to figure out where the commentarial tradition got it wrong, trying to figure out how to actually achieve the break through to stream entry that the Buddha describes.

Here's two posts that I feel touch on the same ground:

The somewhat paradoxical view of the average Theravadin: The insistence that Ariyans do exist - that it is achievable, coupled with the persistent denial that any claims to such states should be taken seriously.

It's very much worth noting that during the Buddha's time Ariyans and those possessing supernormal powers often declared themselves as such. When this became problematic, the Buddha instated a rule that prohibited the declaration of attainments by bhikkhus to lay people. The rule is a dukkhata offense. A dukkhata is a 'wrong doing' and entails a slap over the wrist (figuratively).

As the centuries have gone by there is a virtual prohibition of anyone making any claims what so ever, and if anyone should indeed make a claim to attainment it generates a rather large scandal - Impossible, they say. The person must be deluded!

Non disclosure of one's experiences is widely seen as a badge of honor and I would warrant there was a motive behind such a social imposition. As long as the realities of peoples attainments at large are not disclosed, the hope in the efficacy of the system is very much kept alive. People can continue to 'suspect' that their teacher is an Ariyan and treat them as such. This inspires faith and ultimately helps keep the system afloat.

- http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p117933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and earlier in this thread, which you read and responded to:

...Part of the reason I was induced to abandon the commentarial tradition was because I felt it was a scholastic attempt by puthujjanas to explain something they didn't understand. From my perspective I actually believe almost all meditation teachers in the world are puthujjanas teaching something they don't really understand. A file of blind men, to borrow a simile from the Buddha...

...The traditional method with it's stages of insight knowledge and all that stuff (none of which the Buddha in the suttas speaks of) is a functional system laid out in a distinct and organized manner as a way to make sense and understand something that nobody understood...

- http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 16#p117634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doubt over the reality of the Ariyan demographic within Buddhism is an important issue and provided one doesn't repress the question nor accept a fatalistic-kamma-related answer - E.g. 'The method is correct, but just like a water lily born under the water, the vast majority of people are incapable of achieving nibbana in this lifetime/Buddhist dark-age stuff.' there is a chance one might stumble upon the alternative, existential approach to the Dhamma.

Hi BlackBird,

Do you mean that your doubt will bear fruit in the future, or that you are trying to instil doubt in others?


Mike

Most certainly I hope to inspire doubt in others, but only in regard to the efficacy of the commentarial tradition. I don't know that I'm right. But the more I think, ponder, consider and meditate upon the alternative approach, the more it feels right. In essence it just makes a lot more sense to me and I hope to inspire others to take up the challenge of figuring it all out.

[legolas]

One of the things that I have found working with the suttas is an immediacy. You truly do see the Dhamma at work "here & now". It is not something to be hoped for in the future, but its calming and joyous effect can be appreciated immediately. It has also helped my understanding of what is Dhamma and what is not.

[mikenz66]

Hi Blackbird,

Most certainly I hope to inspire doubt in others, but only in regard to the efficacy of the commentarial tradition. I don't know that I'm right. But the more I think, ponder, consider and meditate upon the alternative approach, the more it feels right. In essence it just makes a lot more sense to me and I hope to inspire others to take up the challenge of figuring it all out.

Since you don't know that you are right, your aspiration seems rather strange.

I've personally had quite a lot of instruction from monks who are/were resident at my local Wat, who are variously Bangladeshi, American, and Thai, and generally follow Sayadaw Mahasi's approach, though the American monk had experience with a variety of other methods, having spent several years after he ordained on retreats in Thailand and Burma. I suppose you'd put them in the Commentarial basket.

I've also spent a little time with Ajahn Tiradhammo, the Abbot of Bodhiyanarama in Wellington, who I believe you know. I presume he passes the Sutta test. I like his approach, and I'd certainly spend time at Bodhiyanarama if I was closer. However, nothing he's said on the retreats I've been or the talks I've listened to is particularly contradictory to my normal practise. He doesn't use Mahasi's noting system, but of course that's not something specifically from the Commentaries, and anyway it's just a tool. But it's still basic Satipatthana stuff - walking, sitting watching feelings, watching mind states, etc. (The longest retreat I had with him was three days, so --- as he joked --- I'll have to go on a longer one to get his instructions on the fourth Satipatthana ).

I've also been on some one-day retreats with a few other monks, including Ajahn Brahm and Bhante Mahinda. Again, I presume Ajahn Brahm passes the Sutta test. But, as you know, he has a very Jhana-oriented approach, rather different from many of the other Ajahn Chah students, more like Pa Auk Sayadaw (Ooops, PAS is in the Commentary basket!). I don't usually practise Ajhan Brahm's method, but he has some really useful ways of approaching certain aspects of meditation, so I do sometimes make use of those. [Incidentally, one of the somewhat elderly (i.e. older than me!) Malaysian-Chinese women I know here regularly goes on retreats at Pa Auk Sayadaw's Malaysian centre, and the meditation teachers here were supportive of her continuing that particular practise.] Oh, and I've been on a retreat with a lay teacher...

Now, what exactly is it that I'm supposed to have doubts about? All of the teachers I've mentioned above, or just the ones who may have been somehow contaminated by commentaries? These are mostly (though not in Ajahn Brahm's case) people I've spent at least several days with, and I am confident in because:
(1) I've been able to observe their behaviour (as in the Canki Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html);
(2) They have been able to diagnose and give advice on my practice, obviously backed up by their personal experience. I.e. whatever I report, it's clear they've been there.

Furthermore, as I have said, there is a much larger difference in approach between Ajahn's Brahm and Tiradhammo than there is between Ajahn Tiradhammo and my regular teachers. So what exactly is the correct way of practising according to the Suttas?

In summary, as I said somewhere above, I actually have quite a lot of confidence that any of the above teachers is teaching good Dhamma, but with slightly different emphases.

Metta

Mike

[BlackBird]

Hi Mike

I think the Ajahns of the Thai forest sangha are great and venerable people, who possess a keen wisdom and great compassion. Whether they are ariyans or not is another matter. My 'beef' so to speak isn't with Theravadin monks, but with the orthodox tradition which is quite clear in espousing the exact path to stream entry. To the Thai forest tradition's credit, by and large (Ajahn Brahm being a bit of an exception) they tend to eschew the commentarial position and have a much more open minded approach to Dhamma. I almost wholeheartedly agree with you in your evaluations.

Perhaps my aspiration seems strange to you, but while I haven't crossed the 'finish line' - so to speak (neither path nor stream), I feel I have gained enough insight from this method to have a conviction in it's probable capabilities. I've been careful to temper my words with probables and possibles, because I feel that's in line with the ol' canki sutta you quoted above. I don't know I'm right about this, but nobody can until they cross the line. I've met one venerable sir in Sri Lanka whom I believe has, and he speaks with a peaceful conviction which far surpasses my own belief in this.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if you're curious about what I believe is the correct approach then you only need to have a giz at 'the book.'

[mikenz66]

Hi Blackbird,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if you're curious about what I believe is the correct approach then you only need to have a giz at 'the book.'

Well, I have read a lot of Suttas. I have also explained in some detail why I find your assertions odd, by comparing my experiences with different teachers, some of whom you like, and some of whom you appear to be dismissing with no particular logic. I have read a lot of suttas, and I haven't noticed any contradictions in how I'm practising and how Ajahn Tiradhammo instructs, as I explained above. I find it odd that you seem to think that if the instructions are from Ajahn T then they are good, if they are from someone else they are bad.

Perhaps you can explain where the practical difference is. I'm afraid at my level I just can't see it. Perhaps in another ten years...

Furthermore, as Geoff/Nana has pointed out repeatedly, the Vipassana-nanas are to be found in the Paṭisambhidāmagga:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p118052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, of course, you could argue (probably correctly) that this is a late addition to the Sutta Pitaka, but then you're opening a huge can of worms. Many Suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, can be argued, from textual analysis and comparison with other canons, to have been embellished over the centuries, so it's not simple to know what is "original" (if anything).

By all means question and study everything, but, as Geoff has said above, it's not a simple exercise:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p118331" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd add that there is no possibility of understanding the Canon without understanding (to some degree at least) the layers of commentarial development which have arisen subsequently. In my case, I accepted the modern treatises of Ven. Mahāsi Sayādaw and the Visuddhimagga as authoritative for over ten years. Then I became interested in the suttas and began to recognize some of the differences in terminology and path structure, etc., between what the suttas were presenting and what the Visuddhimagga and modern Burmese teachers were presenting. Then over the course of the past decade I've been mainly interested in the suttas and the developments found in the Abhidhammapiṭaka and the Paṭisambhidāmagga, and so on. Thus, it's been a 20+ year process of slowly peeling back layers of doctrinal development.

Mike

[Sylvester]

Hi Blackbird

It looks like you're experiencing the same crisis that gripped Ajahn Chah so much that he had to seek out Ajahn Mun. I hope you will be fortunate enough to find "your" Ajahn Mun.

[BlackBird]

Hi Blackbird,

Well, I have read a lot of Suttas. I have also explained in some detail why I find your assertions odd, by comparing my experiences with different teachers, some of whom you like

I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.

and some of whom you appear to be dismissing with no particular logic.

I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.

I have read a lot of suttas, and I haven't noticed any contradictions in how I'm practising and how Ajahn Tiradhammo instructs, as I explained above.

I never said there was a contradiction.

I find it odd that you seem to think that if the instructions are from Ajahn T then they are good, if they are from someone else they are bad.

I don't know what gave you that impression. Reviewing my post I don't believe I gave Ajahn T the slightest favoritism, which leads me to believe you're simply reading what you like into my post.

Perhaps you can explain where the practical difference is.

Practical difference between teachers? I'm not making distinctions between individual teachers. Simply that I don't believe they are ariyans. If you're refering to that little Ajahn Brahm comment in brackets I was simply saying that he tends to espouse a style that isn't too far out of line with the Visuddhimagga. I happen to like Ajahn Brahms practical instructions, and I too have found his instructions useful.

I'm afraid at my level I just can't see it. Perhaps in another ten years...

I'm not trying to be condescending. Sorry if that's the way it comes across.

Furthermore, as Geoff/Nana has pointed out repeatedly, the Vipassana-nanas are to be found in the Paṭisambhidāmagga:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p118052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, of course, you could argue (probably correctly) that this is a late addition to the Sutta Pitaka, but then you're opening a huge can of worms. Many Suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, can be argued, from textual analysis and comparison with other canons, to have been embellished over the centuries, so it's not simple to know what is "original" (if anything).

I will argue that it's a late addition to the Sutta Pitaka and I will question it's validity on that ground. I am quite happy to open this can of worms because I don't really mind if the Satipatthana has been embellished. I don't read as much into it as many do. I think the instructions are quite simple and have been vastly overemphasized and analysed down to minutiae. In my opinion Right Mindfulness is only one of eight factors.


No hard feelings eh Mike, I respect you.

Jack

[mikenz66]

Hi Blackbird,

I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.

Personally, I think there are various ways of reading and studying the Suttas, as I've tried to explain on various thread, such as: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.

This statement is a little meaningless. You mean all the individuals are good but the "tradition" is wrong?

So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?

I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but my problem with this discussion is that you have offered no content. You have given me absolutely no indication of what those who are reading the Suttas wrongly would be doing differently if they were reading the Suttas the right way. From my study of people I guess you think are reading the Suttas the right way, I'd say they'd still be working on their sila, and still doing bhavana by walking, sitting, and watching various physical and mental phenomena rise and fall. And reading and puzzling over Suttas and trying to relate them to their actual experiences. That, therefore, is what I intend to continue with.


Mike

[BlackBird]

Hi Blackbird,

I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.

Personally, I think there are various ways of reading and studying the Suttas, as I've tried to explain on various thread, such as: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.

This statement is a little meaningless. You mean all the individuals are good but the "tradition" is wrong?

I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.

So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?

The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.

I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but my problem with this discussion is that you have offered no content. You have given me absolutely no indication of what those who are reading the Suttas wrongly would be doing differently if they were reading the Suttas the right way.

If you give http://pathpress.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; a thorough geez then you'll understand my point of view - Mostly the writings by Ven. Nyanavira, but also of late the writings of Ven. H Nyanamoli. I'm not trying to offer a debate of positive things, for then we could be here for years bogged down, throwing verbal daggers.

[tiltbillings]

I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.

But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?

So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?

The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.

Again, you do not know that.

[BlackBird]

I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.

But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?

I really do not know whether the Visuddhimagga was the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice. Call it an educated guess.

So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?

The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.

Again, you do not know that.

Which is why I said 'I believe. But by all means, continue to emphasis and highlight the fact that I do not know that, I thought I had expressed that fairly thoroughly, obviously not thoroughly enough.

[tiltbillings]

I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.

But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?

I really do not know whether the Visuddhimagga was the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice. Call it an educated guess.

I quess I'll go with those who have more education in things Dhamma. While the VM may not be perfect, while the VM is certainly open to criticism, there is Dhamma in it and it certainly has been a vehicle for those who have put it into practice.

The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.

Again, you do not know that.

Which is why I said 'I believe. But by all means, continue to emphasis and highlight the fact that I do not know that, I thought I had expressed that fairly thoroughly, obviously not thoroughly enough.

That is fair enough, you believe, but I have to see in your statements of belief anything that is terribly convincing that you must sow doubt among those who don't quite see things your way.

[mikenz66]

I'm not trying to offer a debate of positive things, for then we could be here for years bogged down, throwing verbal daggers.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that you are unable to give any examples at all of how I might be approaching my practise differently if I subscribed to your (or Ven Nanavira's) point of view?


Mike