equilibrium wrote:Jaidyn wrote:On the other hand, the memory of the suttas does not guarantee you get the right vision.
This is interesting.
I see tree things in Buddhism (this is my own interpretation): The own intentions resulting in actions, the experience of phenomenon and the teaching as given in form of concepts (we can also say the teaching comes by inspiration from associating with noble ones, but i leave that out for this discussion). While the teachings in themselves can be said to be correct, they need to be set in the context of experiences and intentions. It is the dynamics between these three things that will lead to progress or not. "Vision" here is understood as the resulting dynamics between the three factors. "Wrong vision" here is the result of any of the tree factors being insufficient. If teaching is insufficient you will not observe the phenomenon correctly (by way of impermanence), if experiencing (focusing awareness) is lacking it does not matter if you know the conceptual teaching about impermanence because you will not "see for yourself". If right intention - avoiding the unwholesome and encourage the wholesome - is lacking, you will be said to not be free enough from desires to actually experience what the teaching is pointing at.
Therefore i say "the memory of the suttas does not guarantee you get the right vision"
Now it becomes a question about what emphasis we put on the teaching and on the other two factors. To answer the question I would want to regard the nature of the individual and also assume the individuals needs will vary across time. But another question: can the memorizing of the teaching be said to have any good general effect common to all individuals putting effort into memorizing?
equilibrium wrote:
The "action by knowing and action by acting" i do not understand, and i do not grasp what difference you mean, and how it relates to memorizing (you may have an interesting conclusion but I don´t see it clearly yet)
Under SN36.6: The Arrow: illustrates the point that a run-of-the-mill person against a noble one where the noble one has only one pain being physical and a run-of-the-mill person has two pains being both mental and physical. This is a good example to use because it shows the ability to let go, now this cannot be achieved by reading alone nor even by memory, it takes something else isn't it.
If we were to use Mr rain man again say in a discussion against a noble person, Mr rain man can recall the entire sutta with ease and probably better than the noble person.....there is a limitation here and this is where it stops for Mr rain man.
The real test is when they are both hit by the arrow and can they do it?.....to achieve one pain. The noble one can do it without even trying but Mr rain man tries his hardest, in fact acting as she or he can do it, recalling the sutta text in his mind.....yet she or he is still a run-of-the-mill person.....with two pains......and why is that?
Hence the meaning of action by knowing (noble one) and action by acting (Mr rain man)......two very different things.
An interesting observation. Memorizing, in my reflection, may give a sort of confidence overshadowing the real ability of the person to avoid "the second arrow". I would like to recall what I described as the dynamics between tree things - experience, intention and teaching. If we are unable to react as the noble one we have to question not only the emphasis on the teaching but also intention and our way of experiencing.
But... to make my view of an important distinction clear: the teachings is
not used as a tool to avoid the second arrow. It is used as a tool to figure out for yourself how to avoid the second arrow. You are correct, to my mind, in that the teaching is dropped at some point (i look at your speculation in the next quote). The noble one has released his grip on the teaching as she or he needs it not anymore to figure out how to learn to avoid the second arrow. The noble one should be beyond the dynamics with the three factors i described. The process of the three factors interacting is just the learning-process involved prior to reaching the final goal.
equilibrium wrote:
If the teaching is true that we have to let go.....then why are we trying to accumulate by memory of the suttas?.....is this not the opposite of what is required?.....can we imagine the amount of suttas that needs to be remembered?.....is this really necessary?....maybe Mr rain man can do it by memory but doubt any of us here can achieve anywhere close.....can we imagine the amount of words, the stress involved?
Do we think someone who is noble actually remembers all the suttas?
Anyway, Merry Christmas!
The accumulation need not to be obsessive. It may look obsessive because it requires such a tremendous effort. People may also be obsessed with just the book just reading, while others are not. The same applies to memorizing.
The accumulation may be because of contra productive attachment, but may also be because of good reasons. We have to regard the characteristics of the individual - the details of the three factors interacting.