vinasp wrote: Elsewhere, supramundane is contrasted with "mundane" (lokiyaa).
I understood that you were applying the term "mundane" to MN 117, and realized that it is not there. What I'm asking is "where" is this "elsewhere" you mention just above? In what sutta(s) do you find the two contrasted, regardless of the terminology used in the suttas?
MN 117 does
not use the term "mundane" for those path factors which are "with asavas".
I was using "mundane" to refer to those path factors that are "with asavas".
The term "mundane" is a bit misleading since these are factors of the noble
eightfold path, which only noble disciples are actually on.
The "four mundane path factors" are right intention, right speech, right
action and right livelihood (with asavas).
Did you forget "right view"? In MN 117 it is listed with and without asavas, too. I see from the bit below, that you realize this, but
The description of right view, for what is obviously the noble eightfold
path, in MN 117, does not conform with right view as described elsewhere.
The "mundane" (with asavas) description of right livelihood specifically
says "noble disciple".
In my understanding, those who are not noble disciples are not on the
noble eightfold path. They are on what is called the "wrong eightfold path".
I believe the way you put the above might have something to do with why you come to a mistaken conclusion in this:
vinasp wrote: But some discourses, such as MN 117, give a misleading description of
right view, which is intended to make puthujjanas think that they do
have right view.
First up, in Thanissaro's translation, he has it as "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones abandons wrong livelihood and maintains his life with right livelihood."
. A "disciple of the noble ones" is not the same as "a noble disciple". You and I are both, I believe, disciples of the noble ones -- that doesn't equate to us being noble ourselves (maybe we are, maybe we aren't, that's not my point).
The assumption you are making is that the Buddha is being intentionally misleading. About two and a half years ago, when I first met you here on this board, we stood at more or less the same place, and I will say again now what I said back then: the context of the times is everything. What you are interpreting as being "intended" to "give a misleading description" only seems that way to you because you don't have the context that the listeners had when the original words were being spoken.
In MN 117 and all throughout the suttas there is heavy use of what we might call in our modern times "pop phrases". We interpret them as pericopes designed for good oral transmission, and they are clearly that too, but the pericopes I'm referring to here are based on phrases that will have been popular in the Buddha's day and they meant something specific to the listeners that we don't "get" because we don't have the context.
We find the phrases, used in MN 117's delineation of views, in the Upanishads. (This does not necessarily mean that the Buddha was familiar with the Upanishads as we have them, only that the conversation was general, and well-known to both the authors of the Upanishads and the Buddha -- and that the wording used to represent them was common to both
.) So when he says, for example, that "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed," we are not aware that these words were used in the Upanishads to talk about what Brahmins believe -- that giving to the priests is effective in bringing on a good rebirth, that offering oblations is, that performing sacrifices is. That short little phrase will have been perfectly clear to the Buddha's audience -- it's not "intended to mislead" in any way shape or form. The only reason to interpret it as "misleading" is if we misunderstand the tainted right view as the Buddha's, when it is not.
He was being very honest, and his audience will have been able to see that. He was listing the views of the day around rebirth: the Brahmin's sacrifices, the common man's interpretations of karma ("There are fruits & results of good & bad actions"), the results of popular efforts towards a good outcome after death ("There is this world & the next world") and ancestor worship ("There is mother & father"). ALL of the things listed in this pericope were about commonly held beliefs about what works to bring on a good rebirth or outcome after death, and that those results are proven ("There are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves"). When does the Buddha ever discuss his followers directly experiencing their next world? He talks of having "seen" his past lives himself but he doesn't talk about seeing "the next" world at all. This is because he is not talking in the pericope of *his views* but of what those of other sects say is going on.
We are confused. We lost the context. So when confronted with the words "given, offered, sacrificed" -- and believing the whole pericope to be representative of the Buddha's "right view" -- we are forced to twist the interpretation of these words out of their original context and say that the Buddha is talking about giving to monks, offering to monks and, what, being self-sacrificing by giving up the home life? (as if the Buddha talks a lot about going forth as being a sacrifice! he experienced it as a relief!).
The Buddha was being very specific -- in the context of his day -- in saying that this "right view with taints" is not his view.
This is why, as regards MN 117:
... one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path" must regard the mundane right view that is *with* effluents.
makes no sense. If you've been struggling for 20 years to understand MN 117 it's because you're missing this: the loss of context has us misinterpreting the sutta. See that, and the whole thing (and a whole lot more that I see you trying to understand) will make sense.
P.S. As well as the paper on dependent origination (which I hope will be through the process and published soon), I have a paper on the above in process, too. Unfortunately, the jurying process caused me to find so much more evidence that it will probably end up being about three papers and it may be a while before the thesis sees daylight. Well, "more evidence" is not really "unfortunate" it's just time consuming.