vinasp wrote:This situation arises because the teachings never say exactly what right view is.
vinasp wrote:The discourse MN 117, which is a late one, is the first, and only discourse to specify the path factor of right view, it says:
"There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves."
So this is right view.
daverupa wrote:I think that the addition is designed to justify the function of kamma within the burgeoning devotional aspects of early Buddhism & the beginnings of the stupa cult, itself prompted by popular veneration of the Buddha's (and others') relics by the fourfold Sangha, as a function of the surrounding cultural milieu.
how does one practice for the Buddhist ideal when the surrounding laity, essential for monastic support, have devotional needs aligned with a certain cultural momentum which is at odds with that ideal?
Cassandra wrote:Any reason why the Buddha couldn't have spoken it himself, other than the fact that "with effluents" does not appear anywhere else?
vinasp wrote: Are you saying that the development of the teachings was driven by the needs of lay followers?
vinasp wrote:What do you mean by "dualist teaching"?
What is the conflict you see between the "Buddhist ideal" and "the laity ...which is at odds with that ideal"?... Can you please explain this in more detail.
This goes to show that, whatever may be the final word on the relationship
between the (Mūla-)Sarvāstivāda and the Sarvāstivāda traditions,
the Tibetan and Chinese versions of the present discourse do stem from
two to some degree independent lines of transmission. For them to
nevertheless agree in not having any exposition of the supramundane
path-factors provides strong evidence against the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta.
As already mentioned at the outset of the present paper, the treatment of
the supramundane path-factors does not seem to be necessary from the
viewpoint of the central topic of the discourse, the same treatment shows
distinct Abhidharmic characteristics and vocabulary, and it is absent
from both parallels. This makes it highly probable that the supramundane
path-factors are a later addition to the Pāli discourse.
Sekha wrote:I am aware that this paper is far from being perfect, all the more that I wrote it while in complete seclusion without anyone to mirror my thoughts, so I learn from the criticism you may express, and I will do my best to correct the mistakes I have done.
This Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty has been set rolling and cannot be stopped by any contemplative or brahman or deva or Mara and Brahma or anyone at all in the world.
If any brahman or contemplative might think that this Great Forty Dhamma discourse should be censured & rejected, there are ten legitimate implications of his statement that would form grounds for censuring him here & now.
equilibrium wrote:20 skillfulness factors as follows:
01. right view
02. right resolve
03. right speech
04. right action
05. right livelihood
06. right effort
07. right mindfulness
08. right concentration
09. right knowledge (arahart)
10. right release (arahart)
There are two routes.....therefore:
10 skillfulness based on: There is right resolve with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and
10 skillfulness based on: There is noble right resolve, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Therefore 20 skillfulness factors in total.
Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of 1. right view, 2. wrong view is abolished. The many evil, 3. unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many 4. skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of 37. right release, 38. wrong release is abolished. The many evil, 39. unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many 40. skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
"Thus, monks, there are twenty factors siding with skillfulness, and twenty with unskillfulness.
JhanaStream wrote:Take care, friend, to not bite the benevolent hand which liberates. The snake bite was prophecized in MN 22.
Another sutta worth considering in conjunction with MN 117, vis-a-vis the with/without asava distinction...AN 2.67 - Bodhi translation wrote:"Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of happiness. What two? The happiness with taints and the happiness without taints. These are the two kinds of happiness. Of these two kinds of happiness, the happiness without taints is foremost."
If there can be "two kinds of happiness" where "the happiness without taints is foremost", why cannot it also be so for Right View?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 83 guests