Many lifetimes of paramita development needed to be aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:One may become an Arhat only after many lifetimes of practice.
Says who?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:One may become an Arhat only after many lifetimes of practice.
Says who?
Try reason.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:One may become an Arhat only after many lifetimes of practice.
Says who?
Try reason.
Not really much of an answer, is it? Given that this is the Buddha's teachings we are talking about, what did the Buddha say about it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
fig tree
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:25 am

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by fig tree »

retrofuturist wrote: There's the infinite regress that your position logically commits you to.

How did the first Buddha become enlightened without a previous Buddha to practice under?
It's not clear to me that classical Theravada doesn't already enjoy the same kind of infinite regress; I don't have a reference handy on this, but I seem to recall that each samma sambuddha is supposed to have received a prediction from a previous one. But I also don't see why one should suppose that there was a first Buddha ever (as opposed to a first one in a given world-system, say).

My intuitions about free will clash with some ideas, but I don't find that I can make a sound argument out of that, or attribute my intuitions to Buddhism or to Theravada. For instance, there is something unsettling in the idea that certain attainments can only be realized if certain strengths of character are present, and that there might be a limit to the speed at which strengths of character can develop. In the Abhidhamma, certain things are supposed to be beyond the ability of a person lacking a "triple rooted rebirth consciousness" to attain, for example. Even if we assume that all that one needs to do to reach some attainment is to engage in certain actions (in thought, word, and deed), some previous mental development might be necessary which takes a certain time to build up. I think it's easy have the impression that freedom of will means that regardless of the past, those actions that would lead to the attainment could arise, and hence not require any previous mental development. But this also is not an idea that I can attribute to Buddhism. The way I tend to think of "free will" seems rooted in ego and unlikely to be correct. It's basically that, because it's me doing the action, I should be able to take whichever option exists, regardless. But in practice, I see myself taking bad options, and seemingly (often) because of lacks of patience, etc.; not that it's all predetermined, but that certain cause-effect relationships exist, even when it comes to what I decide to do.

I don't know which of these claims are correct, but somehow, given that we can't (nearly all of us) tell how many roots (if any) our rebirth-linking consciousness may have had, assuming there is one, or what practice of paramis our previous lives may have had, it doesn't bother me too much.

I also don't assume that the seeming lateness of the references to paramis as a group means that the Buddha didn't teach them as a group. Each is individually skillful, isn't it? The seven purifications are mentioned in a discussion between disciples, in a way that makes it sound as though they had been taught, but was the occasion where they were originally taught recorded? As I recall, it wasn't. Even if the claimed connection of paramis with the path of the bodhisatta was added later, the paramis may have been a group of virtues that had already been taught in another lost context, and then preserved by being associated with that later story. To the extent that they are skillful, when you practice you will be practicing them anyway.

Fig Tree
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

I remember a talk given by Chanmyay Sayādaw at Chiswick Vihāra many years ago. He said, “There is one person here who cannot attain nibbāna. Shall I tell you who it is?” Those in audience who were lacking in pāramī no doubt became alarmed, thinking that the Sayādaw would name and shame them. The Sayādaw continued — “One person here is hopeless. The lazy person is incapable of attaining nibbāna.”

Accumulated past kamma (pāramī) is like the seed. Present effort is like the soil, water, sunlight, and cultivation of the plant. Without a healthy seed, no amount of cultivation will bear fruit as a healthy plant. However, without soil, water, sunlight, and cultivation, even the best of seeds will not grow.

Past kamma only accounts for 1/16th — present kamma (hard work) accounts for 15/16ths. Unless one makes strenuous, unrelenting efforts to cultivate insight throughout the remainder of one's life without taking a break and without losing faith, one could not attribute one's failure to attain nibbāna to lack of pāramī. It is much more likely to be due to lack of effort or lack of skill.

None of knows what our full potential (pāramī) really is. Who knows what might be achieved with a good teacher and a powerful kick up the backside from life's vicissitudes?

Although I offer the facility to practise meditation for the whole day (12 hours) free of charge, I get very few customers. Most say that it is too long. I say, “It is only half a day.” To gain any significant insight one would need to practise much more than half a day. An average person would need to practice strenuously without talking for at least a week or two — that is at least 18 hours a day, without stopping during meals, and only sleeping for six hours at most out of 24.

Check out the Ledi Sayādaw's Bodhipakkhiya Dīpanī for more inspiration.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:I remember a talk given by Chanmyay Sayādaw . . .
Thanks. Good teachings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dharma Wheel -- Mahayana forum

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings venerable Paññāsikhara,
Paññāsikhara wrote:We can always point out that the commentaries are much later, and all that sort of thing, but has the "General Theravada Forum" become the "Sutta & Vinaya Only Forum"? Not that I know of.
Not at all... people are free to believe whatever they like, and to present any views which happen to have been classified as "Theravada" at any point over the past 2500-2600 years, whether they be spoken by a fully enlightened Buddha or a putthujana. It's a broad spectrum, as there's a lot of views and many of them are irreconcilable. Such are the limitations of "traditions" and "schools" for all they can ever be is an aggregation of their members views at any point in time. Many Theravadins are "Sutta & Vinaya Only" in their beliefs - many aren't... therefore "according to Theravada" is a very broad-brush term, particularly when many Theravadins would disagree with what is said, and doubly so when there's no record of the Buddha stating it.

Even calling oneself Theravadin in one's belief is an approximation of sorts, because what exactly is "the" one true single Theravadin view on anything? There's no two people on this website who have identical views of the Dhamma. There is no possibility for any such thing. I compiled a post earlier from Theravadin sources that was vastly different in its meaning and argument than the one previously presented by Virgo.

The Theravadin commentaries themselves state that when there is conflict between the Tipitaka and the Commentaries, the Tipitaka takes precedence. (Alas, I don't know the source of this - ven. Dhammanando provided it back at E-Sangha). I think this is a good guiding principle for Theravada - if people go against it they're going against both the Pali Canon and the commentaries. If followed, it will also help keep the tradition well anchored to the teachings of its founder. Therefore, I myself do not use the term "according to Theravada" unless I know it accords with the Suttas, or preferably, is a direct quotation of the Dhamma-Vinaya itself.

Others may have their own standards, as they see fit, and they are welcome to them and welcome to challenge mine, so long as it remains on-topic. No one will be silenced or taken out back and disposed of for their views.... :spy:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dharma Wheel -- Mahayana forum

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: The Theravadin commentaries themselves state that when there is conflict between the Tipitaka and the Commentaries, the Tipitaka takes precedence.
So what exactly are the conflicts you are worried about in this case?

I can't think of a Sutta offhand that talks about a long development, but neither can I think of one that says that there isn't. And there's plenty about long times, so it seems kind of logical that there was development taking place:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"
Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dharma Wheel -- Mahayana forum

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: The Theravadin commentaries themselves state that when there is conflict between the Tipitaka and the Commentaries, the Tipitaka takes precedence.
So what exactly are the conflicts you are worried about in this case?
To begin then, let's compare venerable Paññāsikhara's assessment of the relationship between "requires many lifetimes", which is alleged to be the commentarial position (though no one has yet to provide an English translation of this view)
Venerable Paññāsikhara wrote:There is no strict contradiction between "requires many lifetimes" and "possible in this lifetime", though there would be if the latter were something like "possible in this lifetime if it were the first lifetime to make any sort of spiritual practice at all".
...with the Satipatthana Sutta...
Thanissaro translation wrote:"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.

"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.

"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
Nyanasatta translation wrote:Verily, monks, whosoever practices these four foundations of mindfulness in this manner for seven years, then one of these two fruits may be expected by him: highest knowledge (arahantship) here and now, or if some remainder of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
Soma translation wrote:"O bhikkhus, should any person maintain the Four Arousings of Mindfulness in this manner for seven years, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge (arahantship) here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning (the Third Stage of Supramundane Fulfillment).
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation says "anyone" as well.

All translation are without any qualifications of lives and lives worth of paramita development. Such qualifications would hardly make it "anyone".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by Dan74 »

Well, if it's anyone, then why not everyone? Obviously the ability to do this is conditional upon other factors, such as the development of the paramis.

I am sure a person of your intelligence, retro, would've thought of this, so what am I missing?
_/|\_
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by BlackBird »

Sorry about interrupting the flow of this
Virgo wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Virgo,
Virgo wrote:Yes, they practiced under previous Buddhas.
There's the infinite regress that your position logically commits you to.

How did the first Buddha become enlightened without a previous Buddha to practice under?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi Retro,

He must have developed wisdom and practiced the 10 perfections for an incredibly long time, probably much longer than other Buddhas because he did not have any Aryan teachers.
If Samsara is without discernible beginning, then how could there be a 'first' Buddha? What am I missing here?

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Well, if it's anyone, then why not everyone?
Because not everyone follows the Buddha's instructions, perhaps?

Soma's translation of the commentary to the sutta reads...

[Sutta] "Verily, o bhikkhus, should any person make become the Four Arousings Of Mindfulness in this manner"
[Commentary] If any bhikkhu or bhikkuni or upasaka or upasika cultivates mindfulness from the beginning according to the method taught here.

He's talking about anyone who follows the instructions expounded in the sutta, but of course not everyone does that.

Does that answer your question?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

To quote Bhikkhu Pesala's insightful words from his website... ( http://www.aimwell.org/Forums/forums.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:All suttas and sutras should be read with an open mind, and compared with teachings in other discourses to see if they fit in with the Dhamma and Vinaya. In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta the Buddha gave the Four Great References, which one should use to test the authenticity of any teaching that is alleged to be the teaching of the Buddha. What these four standards boil down to is that the reputation of the source is irrelevant, all that matters is “Does it fit in with what is found elsewhere in the Dhamma and Vinaya?” If it does, one should accept it. If it does not, one should reject it.
These four references, referred to are as follows...
The Four Great References

7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#ref4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Therefore, before you accept any teaching as genuine — and that includes the teaching in this post — make a proper investigation.
:anjali:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Well, if it's anyone, then why not everyone?
Because not everyone follows the Buddha's instructions, perhaps?

Soma's translation of the commentary to the sutta reads...

[Sutta] "Verily, o bhikkhus, should any person make become the Four Arousings Of Mindfulness in this manner"
[Commentary] If any bhikkhu or bhikkuni or upasaka or upasika cultivates mindfulness from the beginning according to the method taught here.

He's talking about anyone who follows the instructions expounded in the sutta, but of course not everyone does that.

Does that answer your question?

Metta,
Retro. :)
But why doesn't everyone follow the Buddha's instructions? How many practitioners follow the Buddha's instructions to the point of attaining arahatship? And what differentiates between those who do and those who don't? Do you see what I am getting at?

Sure these kammic matters are complex and one can seemingly make leaps in a lifetime. It's hard to believe that Angulimala cultivated deep paramis in previous lifetimes, but on the other hand not many murderers became arahats. Not many non-murderers either. So the ground must've been fertile.

To me this boils down to the question of bodhicitta, but in order to have sufficient resolve to carry out the Buddha's instruction, one has to appreciate the incredible importance of this. And can this be appreciated without the deep cultivation of the paramis?
_/|\_
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Many lifetimes of paramitta development needed to be aryan?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Dan74 wrote:
But why doesn't everyone follow the Buddha's instructions? How many practitioners follow the Buddha's instructions to the point of attaining arahatship? And what differentiates between those who do and those who don't? Do you see what I am getting at?
This is a very good point.

For example, right now, teachings on the establishments of mindfulness can be easily obtained in a number of places. Yet, why is it that some people have absolutely no interest at all? Or, for those who have some interest, that interest soon recedes? Or, though the interest remains, they do not clearly understand it?

Or broader: Why is it that many people have very little, or no interest in the Dhamma? Or there is interest, but they very quickly lose interest? Or, interest remains, but they completely misunderstand the teachings, and make no effort to end the round?

We may say that it is because they don't have a good teacher? But what sort of kamma, and how much, is required to find a good teacher?
Or, even more simply, some people cannot read? But what sort of kamma, and how much, is required to have a school, a teacher to teach reading, and the freedom of time and resources to learn to read?

How many people have interest, but don't have enough time. They are too busy, without work, they will have no food to eat, or place to live. What sort of kamma, and how much, is required to have food, clothing and shelter, to have time so that one can turn towards the Dhamma?

The amassing of this good kamma is shown in the passage cited above by the term "bodhisambhara", the "requisites of awakening". Without these requisites, one may never even encounter a teaching on mindfulness, or other teachings. Or, not have the freedom and time to apply it. Let alone to the point of intensive effort to attain liberation.

Those "requisites of awakening" are just the amassed results of the practices of the perfections.

On a more personal note, I have often found this question needs to be asked when I encounter people who have confidence in the teachings leading to swift awakening, but when I ask whether or not they are ready to drop everything to engage in that practice, they say that they cannot. That is no problem. But they often overlook the point that even before engaging in meditation and insight, often a whole lot of giving and morality is required. But when this is pointed out, they seem unwilling to engage in a bit of the latter which is often lacking, but what they need to set themselves up to go any further with their meditation and insight. To me, this is simply the reason why the Buddha did not automatically teach only the "higher teachings" to everyone who came along. A lot of preparation is required in many cases. Maybe it is symptomatic of the practice of the path as: insight, meditation, morality, giving. Wasn't it the other way around?
Last edited by Paññāsikhara on Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Post Reply