Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Exploring modern Theravāda interpretations of the Buddha's teaching.
ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by ToVincent » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:25 pm

Doodoot wrote:.....
You have a tendency to generalize and "spread out" a little bit too much, for me.
You are answering me about contact - and in this particular case, the underlying meaning of "transfer of possesion" in the word "phassa" - and here comes, out of nowhere, "nati", "mati" and generally the concept of anussaya ?!?!?
This kind of dispersion, is either the shortcoming of newbies; or the intentional desire to have people getting lost in the "sea of the overmuch" (aka red herring).
Sometimes also, there are people who had not understood things properly. And when someone teaches them the proper understanding of those things; they do appropriate that (with "contact"), repeat it in a different phrasing, and add up a bit to it (usually out of context,), like saying "you know, I knew better!".
Charming.

Your first statement is not uninteresting - something I usually call an "exercise of style" - and therefore, still a little bit confused. It gives somewhat a "big picture" of what is going on. And somewhat follows so far what I have been expounding.
Anyway, who could give a short clear "big picture"?
But what's the point of the anussaya, in that "exercise of style" of yours; with the meaning of "transfer of possession" in the word "phassa"?

You seem to adress that issue in your second statement, though; that is to say, the meaning of "transfer of possession" (phassa) in reference to the SN 12.2 extract - in which phassa would be equated to paṭilābho.

My reading of that extract is that "pati-labh-ing" is something that is done since the contact (phasso) nidāna.
"Āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho" could apply to any link or process, betweeen phassa and jāti.
In this sketch - https://justpaste.it/1695d - see the note in the top left: "the latter nidāna "inherits" the elements of the formers, when it applies. A little bit like in object oriented programming, in computer science. I would even add that they can be overridden as well.
Not that I consider myself a robot, though.

Also, paṭilābho has an underlying meaning of "wishing" to acquire, that does not have phassa. The latter being just the fact that something has been transferred.

______

Yet, you haven't still answered my question on what you have called: "later views" of paṭiccasamuppāda?
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=27940&start=40#p439907
Doodoot wrote:The Agamas were composed after the Buddha and obviously includes centuries of distorted transmissions & interpretations. I think your ideas about "satta" are different to the Pali suttas but are similar to later views of dependent origination, which the Agamas appear to also be.
Again, that would attract my attention.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

DooDoot
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by DooDoot » Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:10 pm

Doodoot wrote:You have a tendency to generalize and "spread out" a little bit too much, for me.
This comment is not in reference to anything I have written. To the contrary, this comment is very applicable to your own posts & not at all application to my posts, despite its irrelevance is any reasonable discussion. I consider my posts are an attempt at extreme accuracy to accord with the suttas, such as pointing out "satta" & "possession of sense objects" occurs specifically at "jati" (11th link) in the suttas. I imagine this is a Theravada forum where discussion is according to the Pali suttas.
You are answering me about contact - and in this particular case, the underlying meaning of "transfer of possesion" in the word "phassa" -
I already made posts with clear sutta references showing "contact" does not refer to "transfer of possession" because in many places in the suttas contact is said to be void of self. It does not matter what "phassa" means in Sanskrit because I have never personally read in suttas that phassa itself is "taking possession". The suttas say "jati" includes "taking possession" or "acquisition" of the sense spheres. What taking possession means is believing "I am the owner of this object; this sense object is mine". Please, let us discuss the suttas rather than Hinduism, Mayanana & other philosophies.
and here comes, out of nowhere, "nati", "mati" and generally the concept of anussaya ?!?!?
No. Nati is not necessarily wholly related to anusaya (underlying tendencies) in MN 19 & Dependent Origination. Anusaya (underlying tendencies) are related to ignorance (1st link) and "erupt" as "asava" (1st link - refer to MN 9). Then, it is at nama-rupa (4th link) where nama (mentality), under the control of ignorance & heedlessness, continues with the development of those eruptions (asava) or, otherwise, if mindful, perceives (4th link) those eruptions as unwholesome and makes the intention (4th) & gives attention (4th link) to turning back, abandoning & eradicating those eruptions (asava). Thus, in relation to Dependent Arising, where each link is without inner mindfulness, nama-rupa (4th link) will incline (namati) to follow the stream of those eruptions (asava; anusaya) rather than turn those asava-anusaya back.
This kind of dispersion, is either the shortcoming of newbies; or the intentional desire to have people getting lost in the "sea of the overmuch" (aka red herring).
I think the above comment is unnecessary; similar to your first comment. You appear to not be discussing the suttas but taking your personal idiosyncratic views to be the final truth.

I have posted 'nama-rupa' includes 'namati', which is mentality inclining to follow the stream of ignorance that has erupted at the 1st link. You have posted, in direct opposition or contradiction to the suttas, that nama-rupa is the 'descent' of a "satta". I have posted that the term "satta" is only found in the 11th link of dependent origination, which is "birth". You have posted contact (6th link) is taking possession of sense object & I replied in the Pali taking possession occurs at the 11th link called "jati" ("birth").

I think I have strongly adhered to the suttas where as you keep citing Sankrit, Agama, etc, which are not the suttas. I am certainly not engaged in any kind of "dispersion" but if I kept referring to non-sutta ideas this would appear to be "dispersion".
Sometimes also, there are people who had not understood things properly.
I think this comment is true. In MN 61, the Buddha asked this 7 year old newbie son Rahula what is the purpose of a mirror. Thus, only by continued reflection we can judge whether we understand things properly.
And when someone teaches them the proper understanding of those things; they do appropriate that (with "contact"), repeat it in a different phrasing, and add up a bit to it (usually out of context,), like saying "you know, I knew better!". Charming.
If this comment is asserting you have taught phassa properly, I must disagree. I already posted from MN 148 & elsewhere, which clearly say "phassa" is not taking possession because these suttas say phassa can occur with the wisdom of voidness. These suttas essentially say arahants have "phassa".
Your first statement is not uninteresting - something I usually call an "exercise of style" - and therefore, still a little bit confused. It gives somewhat a "big picture" of what is going on. And somewhat follows so far what I have been expounding.Anyway, who could give a short clear "big picture"?
I don't know what you are talking about here. As I posted initially in this reply, you are not replying here to anything specific I have posted but just making generalised comments,
But what's the point of the anussaya, in that "exercise of style" of yours; with the meaning of "transfer of possession" in the word "phassa"?
There is no transfer of possession in the word "phassa" according to the suttas. In the Pali suttas, phassa refers to the meeting of three phenomena, namely, sense organ, sense object & sense consciousness. Neither of these three things can exist independently of each other, as explained in MN 38. You seem to be saying there is an "independent consciousness", similar to an "Atman/Soul", that takes possession of sense-objects where as the suttas say (MN 148; MN 18; MN 38, etc) that the arising of consciousness is dependent upon the sense bases.
You seem to adress that issue in your second statement, though; that is to say, the meaning of "transfer of possession" (phassa) in reference to the SN 12.2 extract - in which phassa would be equated to paṭilābho.
No. Phassa is completely unrelated to possession/paṭilābho. It is you that is inferring phassa is possession/paṭilābho. I have mentioned the suttas say jati (11th link of birth) includes paṭilābho. But you are saying phassa (6th link) is possession/paṭilābho.
My reading of that extract is that "pati-labh-ing" is something that is done since the contact (phasso) nidāna.
Yes. This is your reading but in my reading the suttas is not the same as your reading because paṭilābho is only mentioned at the 11th link and nowhere else.
"Āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho" could apply to any link or process, betweeen phassa and jāti.
Not according to the suttas but only according to your personal ideas, views & opinions. You may certainly believe this yourself but you certainly are not convincing me.
In this sketch - https://justpaste.it/1695d - see the note in the top left: "the latter nidāna "inherits" the elements of the formers, when it applies. A little bit like in object oriented programming, in computer science. I would even add that they can be overridden as well.
Thanks. But I find little in the suttas to support this sketch, particularly its reliance on SN 12.59.
Also, paṭilābho has an underlying meaning of "wishing" to acquire, that does not have phassa. The latter being just the fact that something has been transferred.
Paṭilābho is used in the suttas in contexts such as acquisition of wisdom (AN 8.2), gaining of faith (SN 55.1), gaining of individuality (attabhavo - AN 4.171), obtaining equanimity (MN 106 ) and acquiring a view ( SN 42.8). You seem to be dispersing the discussion based in Sanskrit dictionaries rather than using the suttas.
Yet, you haven't still answered my question on what you have called: "later views" of paṭiccasamuppāda?
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=27940&start=40#p439907
The original core view of paṭiccasamuppāda is obviously the 12 links found in the Udana (Ud 1.1), SN 12.2, SN 12, MN 9, MN 38, etc. Then later views would be the different links, both in number & particularly definition, found in DN 15, Agamas and then later in Visuddhimagga, etc, i.e., the 3 lifetimes model that really has no direct support in the original core suttas (apart from DN 15).

It think in this topic the definition of nama-rupa found in DN 15 seems to predominate because my impression is Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda relies mostly on the DN 15 definition and bends the SN 12.2 definition to conform with the DN 15 definition. For me, at least, I keep the definitions in DN 15 separate from those in SN 12.2. I do not regard DN 15 to be authentic but, as stated even by conservative scholars, as part of the DN which was primarily composed for propagation to or conversion of Brahmans. The term 'nama-rupa' appears very important in Brahmanism and, at least in my opinion, the Buddha would have used 'nama-rupa' in some contexts to mean exactly what Brahmans held it to mean when he was talking to Brahmans.

In this thread, I have decided to use/contribute Buddhaghosa's definition of 'nama', namely, 'to bend' or 'incline' ('namati').

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by ToVincent » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:10 pm
.....
I will have only one comment about your litany.
For my previous comments still hold. All of them.

"You take things to narrowly". You take things too much, to the letter, (like a newbie).

- you: the term "satta" is only found in the 11th link of dependent origination, which is "birth".
- me: Satta means "living being" - don't just search on satta, but on satte also.
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
Evaṃ khandhesu santesu,
hoti sattoti sammuti.
SN 5.10 -
(SN 5.9 is also interesting)


- you: in many places in the suttas contact is said to be void of self.
- me: Really? - O! - I thought the all paṭiccasamuppāda was void of self. I thought I had straightened that up quite a while ago. Ask the old timers on this forum.
Yet, there is a satta that takes (wrongly) possession of the object experienced, at the point of "contact". Just because he thinks (at least that was what people believed in the time of Buddha), that this object is the self.
Don't get me wrong all the way!

- you: Phassa is completely unrelated to possession/paṭilābho.
- me: Phassa is the moment of "taking possesion" of a stuff experienced - Paṭilābho is the "desire (the wish) to acquire" a stuff (that is experienced) - Nuance.
One is "paṭilābha" (desiring to acquire) in the 8th link, by craving for that stuff (wishing to possess it) - in the 9th, by wishing to appropriate that stuff - in the 10th, by becoming that stuff - and in the 11th, by wishing to do it again and again, ad eternam.
And, as long as there is sense-consciousness (and not just consciousness of that stuff), there will be that moment, when there is the transfer of "property" of that stuff. And that moment is contact.

- you: an attempt at extreme accuracy to accord with the suttas.
- me: It's been quite a long time that I have left this position. And I don't think that I am hurting the Theravadan creed, by reducing my reading of the suttas, to the parallels with the other early schools. Which mean that one has to delve also in the Chinese and/or Sanskrit parallels.
For instance, in your last paragraph, you mention SN 12, as if all the Nidāna Saṃyutta was a serious reference to the study of paṭiccasamuppāda.
My work on the latter - that is to say on SN 12 and the other suttas, as far as the 12 links are concerned - has shown me that, among the Pali suttas considered with parallels in other early texts - that mention the 12 links; there are only very few of them that do so. Indeed, this is the list:
- SN 12.20 - SA 296 (Sarvāstivāda) - SF 163 (avidyā saṃskārā vijñānaṃ nāmarūpaṃ ṣaḍāyatanaṃ sparśo vedanā tṛṣṇā upādānaṃ bhavo jātir jarāmaraṇaṃ).
- SN 12.15 - SA 301 - SF 168
- SN 12.46 - SA 300
- SN 55.28 and SA 846 mention twelve nidānā.
These are the truly reliable suttas, as far as the 12 links are mentioned.
There are a lot of suttas in the Pali canon, that mention the 12 links, and that don't have their counterpart in the other early texts.

As you might have remarked, I don't stop at that.
Sometimes, like in SN 12.20 - SA 296, when the issue is about the definition of nāmarūpa - of which we've talked in this thread - I do try to find in the Pali suttas, some rationale that can extend their definition of nāmarūpa, to that of the other non-Pali texts also. And there are such suttas in the Nikāyas - that are not so explicit at defining straightforwardly the components of the nāmarūpa nidāna as the five khandhas; but from which you can definitely infer that.

If you stick to SN 12.2, as the definition of nāma in the nāmarūpa nidāna, there can't be absolutely no logic in the Teaching.
You have to infer the proper definition, from other not so obvious suttas in the Nikāyas, with parallels.

_____

The all shebang must have some logic. And it has.
However, one must have a solid method.
- 1. rely on parallels.
- 2. good lexical background - search occurences of the Pali words in the suttas with parallels. Check the meaning of these words, particularly occuring in close pre and post texts around Buddha's time.
- 3. check the parallels in Chinese and Sanskrit for a particular context.

And I am off with that.
I think I have said it all. The rest will be sheer useless arguing.
My previous comments still hold - all of them - as I said.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

DooDoot
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by DooDoot » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:07 am

ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
"You take things to narrowly". You take things too much, to the letter, (like a newbie).
The suttas say the Buddha said his teaching is straightforward, open, free from patchwork, i.e., "literal" (MN 22; DN 16, etc).
I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter... SN 42.7
He set forth the Dhamma, good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, possessed of meaning and the letter, and complete in everything... SN 3.65
Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork. MN 22
What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. DN 16
:candle:
- you: the term "satta" is only found in the 11th link of dependent origination, which is "birth".
- me: Satta means "living being" - don't just search on satta, but on satte also.
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
Evaṃ khandhesu santesu,
hoti sattoti sammuti.
SN 5.10 -
(SN 5.9 is also interesting)
SN 5.10 refutes the view of "satta" is a "living being" because SN 5.10 states: "there is no being to be found, apart from convention or view". "Satta" is a "living being" only according to convention. SN 5.10 does not say the aggregates are a "being" ("satta"). In SN 5.10, it is Mara who believes life forms are "a being".
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

SN 5.10

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by chownah » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:08 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:07 am
The suttas say the Buddha said his teaching is straightforward, open, free from patchwork, i.e., "literal" (MN 22; DN 16, etc).
I doesn't literally mean "literal". That would mean that there are no similes or metaphores which clearly there are. I think it means more like there are no trick questions....or something similar.
chownah

DooDoot
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by DooDoot » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:10 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:08 am
I doesn't literally mean "literal". That would mean that there are no similes or metaphores which clearly there are. I think it means more like there are no trick questions....or something similar.
I was referring to the core essence teachings.

:focus:

DooDoot
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by DooDoot » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:11 am

ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
- you: in many places in the suttas contact is said to be void of self.
- me: Really? - O! - I thought the all paṭiccasamuppāda was void of self.
Where do the Pali suttas teach like this? Please quote? How can paṭiccasamuppāda be void of self when self-view is arising in paṭiccasamuppāda; where becoming exists? Since paṭiccasamuppāda includes becoming & since emptiness is void of becoming, how can paṭiccasamuppāda be voidness? In MN 151, Sariputta is called a great man because his mind abides in voidness; which obviously means paṭiccasamuppāda has ceased in the mind of Sariputta. SN 12.3 calls paṭiccasamuppāda "the wrong path". Obviously, Sariputta was not abiding in the "wrong path". :roll: How can paṭiccasamuppāda be voidness when voidness is defined as void of becoming in MN 121?
He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed. MN 121
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
Yet, there is a satta that takes (wrongly) possession of the object experienced, at the point of "contact". Just because he thinks (at least that was what people believed in the time of Buddha), that this object is the self. Don't get me wrong all the way!
I do not get you "wrong". Whatever "wrong" there is your posts are your own doing. It has nothing do to with me. Now, the Blessed One has taught "satta" arising at "jati". SN 12.12 should make it clear a "satta" does not engage in sense contact. Let me quote it:
Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

SN 12.12 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
- you: Phassa is completely unrelated to possession/paṭilābho.
- me: Phassa is the moment of "taking possesion" of a stuff experienced - Paṭilābho is the "desire (the wish) to acquire" a stuff (that is experienced) - Nuance.
One is "paṭilābha" (desiring to acquire) in the 8th link, by craving for that stuff (wishing to possess it) - in the 9th, by wishing to appropriate that stuff - in the 10th, by becoming that stuff - and in the 11th, by wishing to do it again and again, ad eternam.

Sorry, but you moved the goal posts. I am not concerned if paṭilābha may start to develop at craving. This is unrelated to the discussion. Contrary to SN 12.12, you have saying possession starts at contact.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
And, as long as there is sense-consciousness (and not just consciousness of that stuff), there will be that moment, when there is the transfer of "property" of that stuff. And that moment is contact.
Again, this seems to be only your own doctrine (unless you can provide some sutta support for this doctrine).
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
- you: an attempt at extreme accuracy to accord with the suttas.
- me: It's been quite a long time that I have left this position.
I doubt your position was ever the same as mine or anyone else's since everyone does not read literally the same.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
And I don't think that I am hurting the Theravadan creed, by reducing my reading of the suttas, to the parallels with the other early schools. Which mean that one has to delve also in the Chinese and/or Sanskrit parallels.
I also think you are not hurting the Pali sutta or Theravada because the Pali suttas & Theravada are not the other schools. If you studied Islam this would not hurt Theravada.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
My work on the latter - that is to say on SN 12 and the other suttas, as far as the 12 links are concerned - has shown me that, among the Pali suttas considered with parallels in other early texts - that mention the 12 links; there are only very few of them that do so.
Any newbie knows this. What I was saying is the 12 link formula is the complete & original formula, according to the definitions in SN 12.2. This formula was often shortened but DN 15 changes some formula definitions rather than shortens it.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
Sometimes, like in SN 12.20 - SA 296, when the issue is about the definition of nāmarūpa - of which we've talked in this thread - I do try to find in the Pali suttas, some rationale that can extend their definition of nāmarūpa, to that of the other non-Pali texts also. And there are such suttas in the Nikāyas - that are not so explicit at defining straightforwardly the components of the nāmarūpa nidāna as the five khandhas; but from which you can definitely infer that.
You would have to explain how SN 12.20 is related to this discussion.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
If you stick to SN 12.2, as the definition of nāma in the nāmarūpa nidāna, there can't be absolutely no logic in the Teaching.
SN 12.2 is obviously the definitive sutta on dependent origination. Personally, I find it perfectly logical, including nama-rupa. When I do not understand something, I take it for granted that it is me that misunderstands rather than than the sutta is wrong.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
You have to infer the proper definition, from other not so obvious suttas in the Nikāyas, with parallels.
I don't have to infer anything although you are obviously inferring lots. 'Nama-rupa' as defined in SN 12.2 is perfectly logical to me.
ToVincent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm
The all shebang must have some logic. And it has.
However, one must have a solid method.
- 1. rely on parallels .
- 2. good lexical background - search occurences of the Pali words in the suttas with parallels. Check the meaning of these words, particularly occuring in close pre and post texts around Buddha's time.
- 3. check the parallels in Chinese and Sanskrit for a particular context.
"Rely on parellels". :shock:

This is illogical because it infers Gotama was not a good/complete teacher & infers the surviving Sangha was not "Noble" ("Enlightened"). It completely negates the Triple Gem as a refuge. :|
Svâkkhato Bhagavatâ Dhammo
The Dhamma of the Blessed One is perfectly expounded
Beautiful in the beginning
Beautiful in the middle
Beautiful in the end

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by ToVincent » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:58 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:07 am
viewtopic.php?p=440151#p440144
Ah, ok!
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by ToVincent » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:59 am

Ah, ok!
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by chownah » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:07 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:11 am


infers the surviving Sangha was not "Noble" ("Enlightened")
A note of clarification: The concept of "noble" does not imply enlightenment. It refers to the four pairs of attainment (stream entry, once return, etc.)....of which only one half of one pair has reached enlighenment. At least this is what I have read about in the suttas. Perhaps there are other places in the suttas which I have not read which say that "noble" means "enlightened"....if so I would be glad to have a chance to see those suttas for myself.
chownah

DooDoot
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by DooDoot » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:21 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:07 pm
A note of clarification: The concept of "noble" does not imply enlightenment. It refers to the four pairs of attainment (stream entry, once return, etc.)....of which only one half of one pair has reached enlighenment. At least this is what I have read about in the suttas. Perhaps there are other places in the suttas which I have not read which say that "noble" means "enlightened"....if so I would be glad to have a chance to see those suttas for myself.
They all have enlightenment but some have more enlightenment than others. Why would unenlightened minds (that have no insight into the four noble truths & the three characteristics) be honored & bowed down to?

:focus:

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

Post by chownah » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:32 am

I think in theravada the term "enlightened" is typically used for arahants. I think other uses of the word should be announced so as to eliminate confusion.
:focus:
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests