Nyana wrote:Why do you continue to suggest that this is an error created by English language readers? Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Ṭhānissaro, Ven. Guṇaratana, and the entirety of the ancient Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, and Yogācāra commentarial traditions all either read Pāli or other ancient Indic languages.Sylvester wrote:This, as most English readers would insist, must suggest that vipassanā is contemporaneous with jhāna.
AGAIN? I would have thought that after my reply here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p121270
you would come up with something substantial rather than the same tired appeal to traditional exegesis. BTW. I'm still waiting for your essay on the meaning of "samprayukta" and why it connotes temporal conjunction instead of causal conjunction. I for one, despite my misgivings about some of the later commentators, cannot believe that they could not distinguish between samprayukta and sahagata.
Speaking of which, before you launch into the Vibhaṅga Satipaṭṭhānavibhaṅga or the Dhammasaṅgaṇī Cittuppādakaṇḍa Lokuttarakusala Suddhikapaṭipadā again, I suggest you check out an often overlooked grammatical feature of the structure "...at whatever time, ...at that time" that you relied on in the previous posts. They are your well known "ya, ta" relative clauses inflected into the locative. See what Warder has to say about such relative pronoun-demonstrative pronoun clauses and why the "ta" pronoun is not necessarily a temporal locative, even if "ya" us a temporal locative. The Commentaries may interpret it as such, but the grammar (and at least one sutta that I've seen) allows otherwise. This is that future potentiality rather than contemporaneity interpretation advanced by Ven Nyanaponika and Potter.
In short, I am taking up Norman's call that a much more critical way of discussing texts is to consign the Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda and whatever other Vāda's interpretations to their specialist fields and not allow them contaminate a proper linguistic-textual-doctrinal study. If this method does not agree with you, that's fine by me. I just don't find the appeal to authority and commentarial memes very appealing. It's just too pious, and it introduces unjustifiable source bias to validate one's own inclination/understanding of a text.