Deep Contradiction?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2215
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Zom » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:45 am

What do all these ten views have in commom?
All of them are based on a view about "self". Last four - about "Self of Tathagata".

That is why Buddha didn't answer. It is as if he would try to answer a question: "What is the weight of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" This is just stupid question about something which does not exist, so there is no need to answer at all. Same thing with those 10 speculative questions.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6445
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Mkoll » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:00 am

His Holiness...The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Image
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Dinsdale
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:01 pm

daverupa wrote:Some strictly problematic pieces have been included, and we can rest assured that not all of it is strictly Buddhavacana.
But is there any foolproof way of distinguishing wheat from chaff?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:04 pm

vinasp wrote:I mean that what the teachings ask one to do in one place, conflicts with what one is asked to do in another place.
I think there are contradictions, though what we seem to have been discussing a lot recently are ambiguities.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by daverupa » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:30 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:Some strictly problematic pieces have been included, and we can rest assured that not all of it is strictly Buddhavacana.
But is there any foolproof way of distinguishing wheat from chaff?
Foolproof? Surely not. But is a foolproof method a requisite thing? No; all that's needed is a general map, because the details can be refined when one is walking there via the dual route of appropriate attention and supportive others. The point is to start with a map that has a minimum of extraneous markings, I think.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Dinsdale
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:42 am

daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:Some strictly problematic pieces have been included, and we can rest assured that not all of it is strictly Buddhavacana.
But is there any foolproof way of distinguishing wheat from chaff?
Foolproof? Surely not. But is a foolproof method a requisite thing? No; all that's needed is a general map, because the details can be refined when one is walking there via the dual route of appropriate attention and supportive others. The point is to start with a map that has a minimum of extraneous markings, I think.
But what one views as "extraneous" is based on a set of subjective assumptions, so it's not straighforward.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:44 am

vinasp wrote: Why? Because when, in the popular imagination, the Buddha became a superhuman god-like figure, it was an embarrassment for him to say that there was anything that he did not know.
Yes, it's quite possible the Buddha just didn't know the answers to these questions.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:47 am

SarathW wrote: 7. After death a Tathagata exists.
8. After death a Tathagata does not exist.
9. After death a Tathagata both exists and does not exist.
10. After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist.

Buddha Said:
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 61#p280051
:)
What happens to a Tathagata after death seems like a pretty fundamental question to me, particularly if the traditional interpretation is correct.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by culaavuso » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:36 pm

Spiny Norman wrote: What happens to a Tathagata after death seems like a pretty fundamental question to me, particularly if the traditional interpretation is correct.
SN 22.85: Yamaka Sutta wrote: "How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by LXNDR » Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:13 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
vinasp wrote: Why? Because when, in the popular imagination, the Buddha became a superhuman god-like figure, it was an embarrassment for him to say that there was anything that he did not know.
Yes, it's quite possible the Buddha just didn't know the answers to these questions.
i hope he at least knew that there were no more rebirths for him and eternal nibbana was expecting him on the other side :smile:

this is interesting
Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85) wrote:"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
am i wrong or does sankhara-khandha cease with attainment of nibbana?

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by vinasp » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:16 pm

Hi culaavuso,

SN 22.103 Notes by Piya Tan wrote:The unawakened ordinary person, unlike the disciple, tends to see the aggregates in four wrong ways, and is obsessed by his wrong view—this is formulated in the attānudiṭṭhi formula ...."

I am interested in this term 'attānudiṭṭhi' what would it be in English, and where is it found in the four nikaya's?

Also, when are the twenty ways of regarding first called the 'attānudiṭṭhi formula'?

Is attānudiṭṭhi to be distinguished from sakkaya-ditthi?

Regards, Vincent.

culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by culaavuso » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:15 pm

vinasp wrote: I am interested in this term 'attānudiṭṭhi' what would it be in English, and where is it found in the four nikaya's?
On page 23 of From Grasping to Emptiness - Excursions into the Thought-World of the Pāli Discourses Ven. Bhikkhu Anālayo states that attānudiṭṭhi is a synonym of sakkāyadiṭṭhi. The chapter discussing sakkāyadiṭṭhi begins on page 19 of that same link.

The term attānudiṭṭhi can be found in SN 22.156, SN 35.167, AN 6.112, and Snp 5.16.

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by vinasp » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:12 am

Hi culaavuso,

Thank you for those most interesting references.

Do you agree with the Ven. Bhikkhu Anālayo that attānudiṭṭhi is a synonym of sakkāyadiṭṭhi?

Regards, Vincent.

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by vinasp » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:19 am

Hi everyone,

MN 72 is also worth reading on the subject of the undeclared points:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Regards, Vincent.

culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Deep Contradiction?

Post by culaavuso » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:02 am

vinasp wrote: Do you agree with the Ven. Bhikkhu Anālayo that attānudiṭṭhi is a synonym of sakkāyadiṭṭhi?
No reason to doubt the assertion is readily apparent. That interpretation seems to make sense in the context of the suttas referenced above.

This appears to be supported in the Abhidhamma texts as well, as the Vibhaṅga gives an identical definition for both terms. The Pāli Text Society translation by U Thittila says (translating atta as soul, attānudiṭṭhi as soul view, and sakkāyadiṭṭhi as individuality view):
Khudda­ka­vatthu­vibhaṅga wrote: Therein what is individuality view? Herein the unlearned worldling who does not recognize the Noble Ones, is not versed in the teaching of the Noble Ones, is not disciplined in the teaching of the Noble Ones; does not recognize skilful men, is not versed in the teaching of skilful men, is not disciplined in the teaching of skilful men; regards material qualities as the soul; or the soul as having material qualities; or material qualities (as being) in the soul; or the soul (as being) in material qualities; feeling. [Complete in general form of final example.] Perception. [Complete in general form of final example.] Volitional activities. [Complete in general form of final example.] Regards consciousness as the soul; or the soul as having consciousness; or consciousness (as being) in the soul; or the soul (as being) in consciousness; that which is similar, wrong view, resorting to wrong view, inverted grip. This is called individuality view.
...
Therein what is “soul view”? Herein the unlearned worldling who does not recognize the Noble Ones, is not versed in the teaching of the Noble Ones, is not disciplined in the teaching of the Noble Ones; does not recognize skilful men, is not versed in the teaching of skilful men, is not disciplined in the teaching of skilful men; regards material qualities as soul; or soul as having material qualities; or material qualities (as being) in soul; or soul (as being) in material qualities; feeling. [Complete in general form of final example.] Perception. [Complete in general form of final example.] Volitional activities. [Complete in general form of final example.] Regards consciousness as soul; or soul as having consciousness; or consciousness (as being) in soul; or soul (as being) in consciousness; that which is similar, wrong view, resorting to wrong view, inverted grip. This is called soul view.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 72 guests