Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by culaavuso » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:16 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Now, is there sutta support for this?
AN 5.166 contains an interesting exchange on this subject:
[url=http://suttacentral.net/an5.166]AN 5.166: Nirodha Sutta[/url] (Translation and notes by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, [url=http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/numerical-discourses-buddha]NDB[/url]) wrote: Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu accomplished in virtuous behavior, concentration, and wisdom might enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. There is this possibility. But if he does not reach final knowledge in this very life, having been reborn among a certain group of mind-made [deities] that transcend the company of devas that subsist on edible food, he might [again] enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. *(1160) There is this possibility.
[...]
When this was said, the Venerable Udāyī said to the Venerable Sāriputta: "This is impossible, friend Sāriputta, it cannot happen that a bhikkhu, having been reborn among a certain group of mind-made [deities] transcending the company of devas that subsist on edible food, might [again] enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. There is no such possibility.
[...]
Then the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Udāyī: "Udāyī, just what do you understand by a mind-made group?"
"Bhante, it is those devas that are formless, perception made." *(1161)
"What are you saying, Udāyī, you foolish and incompetent fellow? Yet you think you have to speak up!"

1160: Mp: "The devas that subsist on edible food (kabaḷīkā­rāhāra­bhak­khā­naṃ devānaṃ): the deities of the sense sphere. A certain mind-made group (aññataraṃ manomayaṃ kāyaṃ): a certain group of brahmās in the pure abodes, who are reborn by the jhāna-mind."

1161: Ye te, bhante, devā arūpino saññāmayā. Udāyī has confused the devas of the formless realm, who are said to be perception-made (saññāmaya), with the devas of the form realm (including the pure abodes), who are said to be mind-made (manomaya).

freedom
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by freedom » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:11 pm

dhammarelax wrote: ...I looked at Vimalaramsis teachings went though all the Jhanas and reached the Cessation of Perception and feeling and saw Dependent Origination, after that I can see the permanent positive effects of the fruition in my personality...

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
I am wondering if you could share what permanent positive effects of the fruition in your personality after you saw dependent origination? Why does dependent origination make positive effects in your personality? Thanks for your sharing.
One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

dhammarelax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by dhammarelax » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:45 pm

freedom wrote:
dhammarelax wrote: ...I looked at Vimalaramsis teachings went though all the Jhanas and reached the Cessation of Perception and feeling and saw Dependent Origination, after that I can see the permanent positive effects of the fruition in my personality...

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
I am wondering if you could share what permanent positive effects of the fruition in your personality after you saw dependent origination? Why does dependent origination make positive effects in your personality? Thanks for your sharing.
I became a more calmed person less reactive and more respondent, a little bit happier and the strength of the hindrances has been weakened I still get lust, doubt, sloth, restless and ill will but in a smaller extent, particularly ill will seems very weak maybe because I practice the Brahamaviharas, I don't understand why seeing DO and releasing one link produces such a permanent effect but it does :).

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:59 pm

dhammarelax wrote:
freedom wrote:
dhammarelax wrote: ...I looked at Vimalaramsis teachings went though all the Jhanas and reached the Cessation of Perception and feeling and saw Dependent Origination, after that I can see the permanent positive effects of the fruition in my personality...

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
I am wondering if you could share what permanent positive effects of the fruition in your personality after you saw dependent origination? Why does dependent origination make positive effects in your personality? Thanks for your sharing.
I became a more calmed person less reactive and more respondent, a little bit happier and the strength of the hindrances has been weakened I still get lust, doubt, sloth, restless and ill will but in a smaller extent, particularly ill will seems very weak maybe because I practice the Brahamaviharas, I don't understand why seeing DO and releasing one link produces such a permanent effect but it does :).

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
Interestingly, you have self-interpreted what this experience is that you supposedly had/have. Any room here that you could be wrong, especially that you have not taken the time, made the effort, to talk with an experienced practitioner as to what it is that you have experienced? When one starts getting into the concentrations states, it is way too easy to fool one's self.
>> 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

SarathW
Posts: 12459
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by SarathW » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:08 pm

I agree Tilt.
Once in meditation I thought that I realised Nibbana. :)
However some may argue that Buddha did not talk with an experienced practitioner.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6243
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by Aloka » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:27 pm

SarathW wrote:
However some may argue that Buddha did not talk with an experienced practitioner.
Personally I don't think its such a good idea to start comparing oneself with the Buddha.

I have asked for and received very helpful face-to-face advice about my practice from various teachers. Its also worth being prepared to travel further away from ones home area in order to make this possible.

:anjali:

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

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by culaavuso » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:37 pm

SarathW wrote: However some may argue that Buddha did not talk with an experienced practitioner.
Āḷāra Kālāma and Udaka Rāmaputta were both experienced practitioners with whom the Bodhisatta spoke in order to verify his development of the perception attainments.
MN 26: Ariyapariyesanā Sutta wrote: So I went to him and said, 'To what extent do you declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?' When this was said, he declared the dimension of nothingness.

"I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Alara Kalama declares he has entered & dwells in, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to him and said, 'Friend Kalama, is this the extent to which you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge?'

"'Yes, my friend...'

"'This, friend, is the extent to which I, too, have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.'

[...]
So I went to Uddaka and said, 'To what extent did Rama declare that he had entered & dwelled in this Dhamma?' When this was said, Uddaka declared the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

"I thought: 'Not only did Rama have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Rama declared he entered & dwelled in, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to Uddaka and said, 'Friend Uddaka, is this the extent to which Rama entered & dwelled in this Dhamma, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge?'

"'Yes, my friend...'

"'This, friend, is the extent to which I, too, have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.'

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6504
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by Mkoll » Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:37 am

Ven. Anālayo seems to interpret the two passages from the suttas and Vism. that culaavuso linked as meaning that the cessation of perception and feeling attainment requires insight as high as non-returning or arahantship.
Excursions into the Thought-World of the Pāli Discourses by Ven. Anālayo, p. 288-289 wrote:With the final of the eight deliverances, the sense of true liberation from a Buddhist perspective comes to the fore, as the cessation of perception and feeling would require the development of insight up to the level of non-return or arahant-hood (AN III 194 and Vism 702)
I would also say that it seems to be implied by the suttas that this is a penultimate or comparatively high attainment.
MN 30 (MLDB) wrote:Again, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the cessation of perception of feeling. And his taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom.
Similar passages in MN are found at MN 31 and MN 113.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
badscooter
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:07 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by badscooter » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:05 pm

culaavuso wrote:
dhammarelax wrote: A precise description or definition is beyond my reach but I can try my best, while experiencing cessation the six internal bases and the six external bases cease, there are no sounds, sights, tangibles, odors flavors nor mind objects, and you cannot perceive the internal bases either, also there are no formations (mental, verbal, bodily) and no craving, so while in this state you cannot say you are in this state, and when you emerge from it there are no memories of anything happening while in this stage, this is different than with the state of perception-non perception where although you cannot say you are in it either when you emerge you can remember what happened in it and there is still some craving,
[url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/jhananumbers.html]Jhana Not by the Numbers[/url] by Ven. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu wrote: The second state was one I happened to hit one night when my concentration was extremely one-pointed, and so refined that it refused settle on or label even the most fleeting mental objects. I dropped into a state in which I lost all sense of the body, of any internal/external sounds, or of any thoughts or perceptions at all — although there was just enough tiny awareness to let me know, when I emerged, that I hadn't been asleep. I found that I could stay there for many hours, and yet time would pass very quickly. Two hours would seem like two minutes. I could also "program" myself to come out at a particular time.

After hitting this state several nights in a row, I told Ajaan Fuang about it, and his first question was, "Do you like it?" My answer was "No," because I felt a little groggy the first time I came out. "Good," he said. "As long as you don't like it, you're safe. Some people really like it and think it's nibbana or cessation. Actually, it's the state of non-perception (asaññi-bhava). It's not even right concentration, because there's no way you can investigate anything in there to gain any sort of discernment.
I have heard Thanissaro Bhikkhu warn about this.. It is very easy to think one has attained things or to think that one may be further along the path then one actually is.

I have gone through this stage myself..
It would be good to get a good teacher you can talk to about it.
Maha metta
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"

pulga
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by pulga » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:51 pm

In the Sopādisesasutta (AN 9.12) the anāgāmi is said to be one perfected in concentration (samādhismiṃ paripūrakārī) whereas the sotāpanna is one who has only achieved a measure of concentration (samādhismiṃ mattaso kārī).

SarathW
Posts: 12459
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by SarathW » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:09 pm

pulga wrote:In the Sopādisesasutta (AN 9.12) the anāgāmi is said to be one perfected in concentration (samādhismiṃ paripūrakārī) whereas the sotāpanna is one who has only achieved a measure of concentration (samādhismiṃ mattaso kārī).
Can someone give me the link to AN9.12.
Thanks.
:)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:19 pm


User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2488
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by Zom » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:50 pm

There is a sutta in AN which says that non-returner in Pure Adobes can reach nirodha. That is why Theravada says about both arahant and anagami. However, there is no sutta which says that once-returner/stream-winner can reach even 1st jhana.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:55 pm

Zom wrote:There is a sutta in AN which says that non-returner in Pure Adobes can reach nirodha. That is why Theravada says about both arahant and anagami. However, there is no sutta which says that once-returner/stream-winner can reach even 1st jhana.
It is unclear what it is that you mean to be saying here in the underlined sentence.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is the Theravada Tradition wrong?

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:21 pm

pulga wrote:I think Ven. Ñanavira would concur with you.


The minimum strength of samādhi that is necessary for fruition is as follows: for arahattā and anāgāmitā, jhāna strength is needed (the first jhāna is enough)—see Mahāmālunkya Sutta, M. 64: i,432-37; for sakadāgāmitā and sotāpatti full jhāna is not needed—see A. IX,12: iv,378-82—but it is necessary to have the samādhi nimitta (which comes long before jhāna)—see A. VI,68: iii,422-3.[2] But the samādhi can be developed either separately beforehand (as explained above) or together with paññā, and presumably in cases where there is attainment simply on listening to the Buddha it is the latter. (I am aware that there has been a controversy about whether jhāna is or is not necessary for the attainment of sotāpatti, but, as so often in controversies, the disputants have gone to extremes. Those who assert that jhāna is necessary believe—rightly or wrongly—that their opponents are maintaining that no samādhi at all is necessary. But the fact of the matter is that some samādhi is necessary, but not full jhāna; and this may or may not, have been developed independently of paññā.)

[92.2] A. VI,68: '"One not delighting in solitude could grasp the sign of the mind (cittassa nimittam)": such a state is not to be found. "One not grasping the sign of the mind could be fulfilled in right view": such a state is not to be found. "One not having fulfilled right view could be fulfilled in right concentration": such a state is not to be found. "One not having fulfilled right concentration could abandon the fetters": such a state is not to be found. "One not having abandoned the fetters could realize extinction": such a state is not to be found.'


How does this support this: " However, there is no sutta which says that once-returner/stream-winner can reach even 1st jhana.?
>> 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests