vinasp wrote: This is really puzzling. How is one supposed to explain it?
BB: The definitions of the path factors to follow are also at
DN II 311-13, DN 22: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
MN III 251-52, MN 141: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, they are incorporated into the formal treatment of the path according to the sutta method in the Suttantabhājaniya at Vibh 235-36. In the Abhidhamma-bhājaniya the path factors are considered as exclusively supramundane.
mikenz66 wrote:As I understand it, it's a description of the factors of the path. A summary of the key aspects of practice to be developed.
vinasp wrote:Perhaps the teachings are meant to be given just as they are, without any explanation.
retrofuturist wrote:I believe they can and should be explored further so as to deepen one's understanding and application of these factors, but they don't necessarily need to be interpreted according to any external exegesis/eisegesis.
retrofuturist wrote:I believe Mike posted these sutta translations and accompanying resources for our common exploration, rather than to suggest that any one translation or explanation has an intellectual monopoly in depicting how SN 45.8 must be understood by all people.
vinasp wrote:On the distinction between a noble disciple and a puthujjana.
"Again, a noble disciple considers thus: 'When I pursue, develop, and cultivate
this view, do I obtain internal serenity, do I personally obtain stillness?'
vinasp wrote: If so, then this new "mundane" eightfold path is the same as the old wrong path.
BB: All eds. of SN have here abrahmacariyā veramaṇī, but elsewhere the reading is kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī, “abstinence from sexual misconduct”
(see DN II 312, 12-13; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
MN III 74, 22, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
MN III 251, 24-25; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html
Vibh 235, 18-19).
The former phrase is found in the precept observed by monks and nuns, the latter in the precept undertaken by the laity. Spk does not comment, which suggests that the SN reading is the result of a scribal error, probably introduced after the age of the commentary; otherwise Spk surely would have explained the variant. I have therefore translated on the assumption that the correct reading should be kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests