the great ignorance debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by appicchato »

Does ignorance predominate in our individual lives and thoughts and/or in the state of affairs in the world, or not?
Does, or is?...either way all one has to do is look around to answer that one...
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by nathan »

appicchato wrote:
Does ignorance predominate in our individual lives and thoughts and/or in the state of affairs in the world, or not?
Does, or is?...either way all one has to do is look around to answer that one...
Maybe, maybe not. There is a spectrum of thought on the subject in this thread already. Everything from ignorance narrowly defined as specifically ignorance of annata to ignorance quite broadly defined as the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world. I prefer the much wider definition and I think the examination and consideration of ignorance can be very beneficial in the widest possible context but I can also see why the Buddha would teach an approach to overtaking ignorance in the one place where it is perhaps most vulnerable, in the context of 'self'-delusion. One aspect of this that I find interesting is how broadly resilient ignorance is beyond the one context where it can most readily be undermined by the application of the eightfold path.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by nathan »

In further searching on the subject I found this pdf of the Tanha Sutta which discourses on the relationships between Tanha and Avijja.

(Āhāra) Taṇhā Sutta
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 2-piya.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by appicchato »

Maybe, maybe not.
One size fits all?...this applies to everything in life...
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by nathan »

appicchato wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
One size fits all?...this applies to everything in life...
hi Venerable Appicchato

I applaud your pithy posts Venerable but in this case I am not really sure what you have been intending to say.

--------

hi Retro

In regards to your question, Ven. Gunaratana makes the following distinction between avijja and moha in the quotation from the article linked below.


Dhamma Articles
Four Noble Truths
Bhante Gunaratana
http://www.bhavanasociety.org/resource/ ... le_truths/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When there is ignorance there is confusion. That is another word. Ignorance is called avijja. Confusion is called moha. When we do not know the truth, we build up theories. We come up with all kind of theories. Theories regarding the world, the self. All the theories in the world are based on these two factors. What are the two factors? The belief in self and about the world. These theories confuse us and that is called moha. avijja is one thing, moha is another. Moha is the result of avijja. avijja is not knowing the Four Noble Truths."

Researching avijja and moha online has turned up a myriad of links discussing Dependent Origination. While generally DO is approached in a way that matches the classical Theravada interpretation of the subject as further specified in the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga and the commentaries there are also some who have commented about DO in significantly different ways. Examples of those with alternative views on DO would be Ven. Nanavira Thera, Ven. Buddhadassa and several Japanese Scholars. In simplest terms, these writers view the links in the chain of DO not as sequentially arising factors but as a group of factors that are all present at the same time.

I mention this about DO because it continually surfaces as the predominant context in which discussion about avijja is framed. I was more interested in examination of ignorance in much broader terms be it within the teachings or in any other ways. It wouldn't make sense exclude examining ignorance in this context but I wasn't intending to restrict the conversation to a discussion of ignorance as a part of DO either.

After several years I have finally been able to purchase copies of the Nikayas again (previous library was lost in a fire) and one of the things I have been thinking to look for as I re-read the discourses is some of the other contexts in which the Buddha discusses ignorance. I had the sense that ignorance was not restricted to it's narrow application within DO in the teachings but perhaps I am wrong about this. I'm interested to know the extent of the references to ignorance. It will take some time to read the Nikayas again but as I do so I will take note of any instances I find where ignorance makes an appearance and post a reference to it here.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Nathan,

Excellent find, re: the Gunaratana quote. That makes a lot of sense and validates the unnerving discontent I had with regards to the treatment of moha as being synonymous to avijja.

You mention dependent origination, and whilst I'm normally the first to dive into a comparative discussion on the three-life/temporal/objective model versus the structural/subjective model of dependent origination, I might hold back just for a moment to pose the following question that seem more pertinent to the topic at hand...

A putthujana obviously possesses a degree of avijja (complete ignorance?) whereas at the other end of the spectrum an arahant has none. A sekha (non-arahant noble one) however, would presumably be somewhere in between. How does dependent origination apply to the sekha? Is there avijja sometimes, is there avijja in different degrees, or is it an all or nothing case of vijja and avijja, period? If it's something other than "always yes" or "always no", what implications does this have on our understanding of dependent origination, and the concept of avijja in general?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by nathan »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Nathan,

Excellent find, re: the Gunaratana quote. That makes a lot of sense and validates the unnerving discontent I had with regards to the treatment of moha as being synonymous to avijja.

You mention dependent origination, and whilst I'm normally the first to dive into a comparative discussion on the three-life/temporal/objective model versus the structural/subjective model of dependent origination, I might hold back just for a moment to pose the following question that seem more pertinent to the topic at hand...

A putthujana obviously possesses a degree of avijja (complete ignorance?) whereas at the other end of the spectrum an arahant has none. A sekha (non-arahant noble one) however, would presumably be somewhere in between. How does dependent origination apply to the sekha? Is there avijja sometimes, is there avijja in different degrees, or is it an all or nothing case of vijja and avijja, period? If it's something other than "always yes" or "always no", what implications does this have on our understanding of dependent origination, and the concept of avijja in general?

Metta,
Retro. :)
hi Retro

Yeah, I would think that there are two terms for a reason but I have been away from the books for quite a while now and so it is going to be a while before pali starts to seem familiar again. I didn't have many books for quite a while and so I'm only now returning to study and most of my thinking for the last few years has been based in a much more hands on approach to the practice. So I'm not keen to jump into debating models of DO either. In the same way, while I could comment on your question, about what avijja is like for a sekha, from that same kind of hands on context I have become increasingly leery of making those kinds of comments because of the kinds of cans of worms that those kinds of statements lead to. Unfortunately, the only other alternative is to go research what the cannon and other commentators have to say about it.

I will continue to research it because I think the question relates to some of my own broader questions about the extent to which ignorance plays a role in how things are. If we take the much narrower definition of ignorance as specifically the ignorance of the 4NT then even in the case of the Arahat and the Buddha there is still quite a lot of other kinds of ignorance that could be said to persist about a great many aspects of the universe. I don't want to minimize the accomplishments of Arahats or Buddhas in any way but I would like to have a better sense of the extent of the ignorance that appears to be so much more prevalent in so many other ways. I don't want to dwell on ignorance to the point that it becomes counter productive, but I would like to make a more honest appraisal of the roles that ignorance actually plays in our lives.

My concern is that if ignorance is so easily mistaken for a sense of self then where else might we be similarly mistaking ignorance for something else. The specific case of avijja as ignorance of the 4NT may have all kinds of complex interrelationships with moha about ourselves and the universe we live in.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Nathan,
nathan wrote:The specific case of avijja as ignorance of the 4NT may have all kinds of complex interrelationships with moha about ourselves and the universe we live in.
In the context of my earlier question, do you take avijja to be a 'real time' indicator of how one is interpreting their world in the present (i.e. with ignorance, with wisdom) or more broadly in the terms of one's sum of knowledge, which may or may not be front of mind in the present moment?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by appicchato »

nathan wrote:
appicchato wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
One size fits all?...this applies to everything in life...
I applaud your pithy posts Venerable but in this case I am not really sure what you have been intending to say.

Hi Nathan...good to see you here...

The answer to your question (Does ignorance predominate in our individual lives and thoughts and/or in the state of affairs in the world, or not?), to me, is so self-evident that I wonder why it would even be presented as a question...hence my stating what I thought/think to be the obvious...after which you said 'Maybe, maybe not'...and this, to me, is also stage center in what is self-evident in every aspect of life...so...what's to discuss?...nothing is absolutely, verifiably, 100%, for certain (some might say that it's certain we're all going to die, but even that's up for grabs, no?)...and not to change the subject, but if you have an example that is (certifiably not 'Maybe, or maybe not', I would be interested...

Bit of a ramble here, I admit...just trying to explain my thought on the matter...
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by Pannapetar »

I think I have to agree with Ven. Appicchato on this one. The question is a good example of a so-called no-brainer. No offense. It's just so glaringly obvious. The more interesting question is whether we as a species are on a threshold of development where knowledge makes a difference, or perhaps phrased more clearly: do we have the capacity to free ourselves out of the mire of ignorance? The very occurrence of a Buddha would suggest this. I doubt therefore that Buddhists can deny this without contradicting the dhamma, but what about non-Buddhists? There are a good number of people who believe we are doomed one or another way.

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar ,

I don't see how it's a 'no brainer'... at least not until you define vijja and avijja.

How would you answer this question - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =20#p65013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by Pannapetar »

retrofuturist wrote:I don't see how it's a 'no brainer'...
I was referring to the OP's original question: Does ignorance predominate in our individual lives and thoughts and/or in the state of affairs in the world, or not?
retrofuturist wrote:How would you answer this question - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =20#p65013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'd say that the question is not phrased properly. Avijja is not an 'indicator', but the root cause. Avijja isn't always read easily in others and it is very very difficult to detect in oneself, hence it is not an 'indicator'.

Cheers, Thomas
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by PeterB »

You havent understood Avijja. Avijja isnt read in others. Its a given, just as dukkha antta and anicca are givens. What we cant assess in others and only in part in ourselves is Moha.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Peter,
PeterB wrote:Its a given, just as dukkha antta and anicca are givens. What we cant assess in others and only in part in ourselves is Moha.
I realise this wasn't directed at me, but I'm interested to know by what definition/logic you consider avijja to be "a given"? (Therefore, I'll now ask you this question too...)

Do you take avijja to be a 'real time' measure of how one is interpreting their world in the present (i.e. with ignorance, or with wisdom) or more broadly in the terms of one's sum of knowledge, which may or may not be front of mind in the present moment?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great ignorance debate

Post by PeterB »

A given in that as long as we are not enlightened our perception/cognitions will always have their origin in Avijja. It is an a priori. The first link in paticcasamuppada.
Which I think answers the second bit too.

:anjali:
Last edited by PeterB on Tue May 11, 2010 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply