Sylvester wrote:What are we supposed to do with the Chinese parallel in MA 72?
Sylvester wrote:That being said, I would not disagree that MN 128's nimitta does not quite resemble the Commentarial paṭibhāganimitta
Sylvester wrote:Indeed it does. Ven Analayo therefore surmises that the Commentarial explanation for MN 128 stems from the Gayasisa Sutta aforementioned. That explanation, in Ven Analayo's view, is difficult to reconcile with the standard model of the development of the iddhis based on the 4th jhana.
Sylvester wrote:All in, the Gayasisa account gels quite well with the Eastern Bamboo Park account in MN 128, where the effulgence and forms were in the lead-up to jhana, rather than pursuits of iddhi post-jhana.
Ñāṇa wrote:Sylvester wrote:But at any rate, speculating about this particular issue of iddhi and abhiññā without recourse to the commentaries or direct knowledge is akin to blind men speculating about what it's like to look through a kaleidoscope.
Users browsing this forum: waryoffolly and 8 guests