Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@federica said:> Yes, but simple doesn't mean easy.
Yes, it does turn out to be simple, but realising that can be a long journey. There are many kinds of simple, and finding one that really resonates can take a while.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think when people come to Buddhism, explore Buddhism, try Buddhism, choose Buddhism, study Buddhism - call it what you will - the prevalent apparent desire is to know every possible thing about it, right now.
At the outset, everything provokes questions (which is good, i stimulates the desire to advance) but answering them all, there and then (or here and now!) is both impossible and impractical.
I know when I first began the walk, as it were, my questions came thick and fast - and my desire to 'get it', to absorb everything and understand what I beheld, was enormously frustrating!
Fo a while, (no jokes please) I really thought I was thick. I'd never get it. I was destined to reside perpetually, in the f**kwit realm....
Now, things are better, but I find I'm more relaxed when I go through a Sutta, and then read different peoples' interpretations.
Often, a Sutta is just a bit too much. For goodness' sake, who wants to work that hard - ?! - Some do, it seems!
Others are much simpler to digest and absorb, and reading extra mateial is unnecessary.
And one of my favourite, and most comforting Suttas, is the Simsapa Sutta.
If ever I start feeling bogged down, I remember that one.
I am not sure that satipathana sutta is all you need but it is a very good start and contains more or less all the instruction you need. But to understand it other sources are necessary unless you are a superbuddhist born and bred with pali and sanskrit in your blood.
And if you want a real easy approach a teacher is nice.
I think people usually take what has worked for them and then apply it to everyone else, assuming "it works for me, why wouldn't it work for them?" I happen to get a great deal out of having a teacher and a sangha. Having spent the day with them yesterday, I was quite blessed, and many times tears came to my eyes just being with them and listening to my teacher do what he loves-teach. When I don't understand a teaching of any sort, I always have someone to go to who is on the same path (basically) as I am. At least we are going the same direction. It's much more comforting and confidence-inducing to my practice than it is for me to ask a huge group of strangers from all different traditions and countries. Some questions are best asked of such a group. But others are not. So it's funny to me that many people specifically resist having a teacher when I find it so helpful. Likewise others find it odd someone wouldn't study the sutras, wouldn't prostrate, and even people who don't meditate. It's just human nature to assume the best way for us is the best way for everyone.
But I wish we could get past it enough to at least understand that other people find other ways, and that's ok. What one finds of the utmost importance doesn't even enter the picture for someone else. As in the raft analogy, there are many ways to get the raft across, like @federica said, no one way is the only way.
I personally don't enjoy sutra study. Some of them are ok, I have many I like. But delving into them is just not something I do. When my teacher teaches, he teaches from the sutras sometimes but he has already broken them down and the insights he has into them are something I would never, ever glean on my own no matter how much I studying, chanted, meditated or picked them apart. So there is little value to me just randomly picking sutras off the internet to read through. I miss too much.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited February 2015
I love reading the various suttas and sutras along with any learned commentary on said teachings.
Since I think the teachings were slightly tailored to the audience in attendance at the time, I take the core elements and try to see what he's saying to me.
I'd venture as far as to say most turn out to be fairly logical and common sense so when they get confusing I wonder if they're supposed to be.
Sometimes he seems to be saying the devil is in the details and others he goes into detail so...
One can either read between the lines, take another's view as their own to save confusion or one can just practice Buddhism and save the ribbons and bows for those that enjoy that kind of thing.
A lot of sutras (it seems) were directed at the monastic community. So it's interesting to wonder what, if anything, of those he would apply to lay people.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited February 2015
Well, he didn't bother to rent a hall so anyone could listen in, right?
I've never been one for too many formalities.
There were likely too many lay people interested in waking up in the midst of samsara so if he didn't include us, someone else would.
@karasti said:> A lot of sutras (it seems) were directed at the monastic community. So it's interesting to wonder what, if anything, of those he would apply to lay people.
I don't see the relevance of this observation. We have the teachings and we can choose to apply them or not. Arguing that we get a free pass because we are lay-Buddhists seems very lame to me.
@ourself said:> I love reading the various suttas and sutras along with any learned commentary on said teachings. > Since I think the teachings were slightly tailored to the audience in attendance at the time, I take the core elements and try to see what he's saying to me.
Yes, that's a good approach. I've found over time that I've focussed more on the suttas which relate directly to practice.
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't see the relevance of this observation. We have the teachings and we can choose to apply them or not. Arguing that we get a free pass because we are lay-Buddhists seems very lame to me.
It is not lame. It is a matter of goals. Although it is a little bit simplistic way to see it either you try for unbinding or you are satisfied with living this life skillfully with no aspiration on nibbana.
The Great Forty sutta seems to imply both these paths are right view?
And this is in fact a division that many SL buddhists live by.
So it is not only applying a teaching or not but what of the teaching we choose to apply.
Again there is the division between Mahayana Goal and Theravada Goal.
Again it is how and what of the teachings we choose to apply.
Cosmology based around a flat earth or the geographical Buddhist central mountain http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru
is basically, how can I say this kindly and skilfully? M m m . . . I feel the words I am looking for are 'blatantly ignorant twaddle'.
In a similar way theories of evolution based around
a golden age (Adam and Eve time) through a process of decline
or we evolve through not actually totally being dusted into dust (reincaceration of souls)
rebirth through mysterious forces beyond the comprehension of all but Buddhas
are also no comparison to Darwinian evolution.
I could be wrong.
However the evidence is not convincing but here it is for balance:
God said so
Buddha said so
This scripture said so and scripture is the Koran, Bible, sutra etc
Have I done bad again? Ah well, it's the hell realm for me in my next devolution . . .
This infoTwaddle to put it politely is from a self styled shaktiput dealing 'tantric dragon' . . . I knew her when she was a mere goddess . . . now available by bat phone . . . maybe it is someone with similar pretensions of grandeur . . . who knows . . .
Anyway a quote, take it with a pinch of salt and reality:
Shaktipat is not "instant enlightenment", because the consciousness could not handle such radical changes, like the Chinese curse, "May you clear all your karma by next week and become enlightened"... most people could not handle it all coming up so quickly, they would be insane or dead... but Shaktipat does make for a smoother process. Shaktipat tends to be gentle, "To each according to their need and ability to receive, and not more than they can handle".
Here be dragoons
and now back to the battlefields strewn with dead and crazy Zenniths . . .
@Victorious said:It is not lame. It is a matter of goals.
I think you missed my point. What I said was lame is using this as a free pass, an excuse not to practice seriously. People can freely choose how seriously they want to practice, it's all there.
@SpinyNorman said:
What I said was lame is using this as a free pass, an excuse not to practice seriously
I doubt you think my SL peeps practice seriously. Praying to gods for good karma to be born in better condition to be able to reach Nibbana in the next life ... (yaay!)
Reciting pali scripture for protection against ghosts and black magic ... (I love this one)
Sacrificing flowers to buddha statues to pass the exam and offering money to monasteries to get their name on he top ten doner board outside the temple... (I had to ask them again just to make sure they were serious) etc...
See...?
Still they do the occasional good deed and try not to break the pansil...
The question is maybe who gets to decide what is serious or not?
I think it's pretty straightforward, the time and energy somebody puts into Buddhist practice, their commitment, how central it is in their life, how long they stick at it, and so on. I'm not talking about methods of practice but the degree of commitment involved.
Yes, and it is interesting to distinguish the kind of practice that is mainly just on the outside.
Like showing off with quotes from the sutras for instance..? Or making theatrical donations to the Buddhist centre..? Wearing Asian clothes…?
Ugh, quote no work.
That's quite a large leap if you are assuming that is what I meant. If I wanted to say "he was addressing monks, what he said doesn't apply to us lay people" that's what I would have said. When I said it was interesting to wonder what would apply to lay people, that's what I meant. We don't know, mostly. If Buddha were to come to America today, what would he tell all of us? Would he address us exactly the same as he addressed the monks, many of whom followed him for many years? Probably not. That doesn't mean the message wouldn't have been the same. I just wonder how/if it would have changed. Stop assuming that I'm lazy and looking for a free pass. That's hardly the case.
I wasn't assuming that you're lazy, but I have heard this argument used as an excuse before. Yes, it's clear that the Buddha taught in different ways to different people, but I think the message was the same.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I would hope so.
I could see him expecting more discipline from monks but maybe more compassion from the lay person.
@SpinyNorman said:
I wasn't assuming that you're lazy, but I have heard this argument used as an excuse before. Yes, it's clear that the Buddha taught in different ways to different people, but I think the message was the same.
Again no.
This is one of the very important parts that Western Buddhists miss in the Dhamma.
According to asian way of seeing it the message was not the same to all people.
The Dhamma is in Theravada aimed at two types of devotees. There are those that walk the path to liberation and those that walk it for better station in samsara.
This distinction is very clear in SL and also in Thai Theravada at least.
Goes through all the eightfold path marking each of them at "Twofold" For instance
And what, bhikkhus, is right intention? Right intention, I say, is twofold: there is right intention that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions, and there is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
So there is Right Intention, Right View, etc that is not factor of the path to liberation. According to this.
In the right view section it is described as ok to believe in gods, heaven and karma. In fact it is Wrong not to believe in them. So there...
There are also another suttas that concearn the destination of eight types of disciples of the Dhamma of which the four first are the Aryan Sangha and the others are more ordinary believers, after death.
Then again in Digha Nikaya Tevijja sutta Gotama teaches the path to union with Brahma.
So as you can see to different paths depending on your devotion.
I don't agree with you based on what MN117 actually says. Mundane right view is based on correctly understanding the teachings, supra-mundane right view is based on directly knowing the reality, developing insight and wisdom.
Note the repeated reference to a "noble and taintless" mind in the supra-mundane sections, it's actually how how developed one's mind is, not about one's status in the Buddhist community. And of course this discourse is given to monks anyway, not a mixed audience.
The monk / lay-Buddhist distinction is essentially cultural anyway, this distinction is becoming progressively blurred in western Buddhism with more prominent lay teachers emerging.
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't agree with you based on what MN117 actually says. Mundane right view is based on correctly understanding the teachings, supra-mundane right view is based on directly knowing the reality, developing insight and wisdom.
Well you might not. So can you then explain what this passage has to do with understanding the teachings to reach unbinding?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? '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 contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
And what explanation do you have for the Tevijja sutta?
I just clearly explained the difference between mundane and supra-mundane path factors. It's based on how developed one's mind is, the degree of direct insight and wisdom.
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.
@SpinyNorman said:
I just clearly explained the difference between mundane and supra-mundane path factors. It's based on how developed one's mind is, the degree of direct insight and wisdom.
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.
Because the belief in Karma, Heaven and Gods is in no way a requisite for the path to unbinding.
No matter how much your mind is developed in the understanding of them.
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (Karma) . There is this world & the next world (Heaven). There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings (Gods); there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
@SpinyNorman said:
But the difference is still about how developed one's mind is, the degree of wisdom, not about one's status.
So you mean the text is wrong? That it is not Right View to believe in Gods. Karma and Heaven?
That a person of that persuasion is somehow lower in wisdom?
Where do you see the indication that that is a lower degree of wisdom to believe so according to the Dhamma?
What do you mean status? I thought we were speaking about the message of the Dhamma to different people.
And do you mean that people believing in Gods, Heaven and Karma, if they just evolved their understanding of these concepts could reach unbinding then?
Or do they need an entirly other understanding...?
for instance some of this?
And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Well, looking at your quote on supra-mundane right view we see the references to discernment, and analysis, ie developing insight, direct knowledge, rather than belief or an intellectual understanding of the teachings as with mundane right view. The distinction looks very clear to me.
@SpinyNorman said:
Well, looking at your quote on supra-mundane right view we see the references to discernment, and analysis, ie developing insight, direct knowledge, rather than belief or an intellectual understanding of the teachings as with mundane right view. The distinction looks very clear to me.
so you keep saying but could you be a little bit more precise since it obviously is not as clear to me?
What exactly is the intellectual understanding or the belief of the teachings that you are talking about in the following?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (Karma) . There is this world & the next world (Heaven). There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings (Gods); there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
Could you point it out please?
Thanks
Victor
PS.
feeling a bit down winded and going to bed now. Catch ya tomorrow.
From the sutta quote mundane right view is about ritual, understanding the teachings on kamma and rebirth and respect for the wise. In modern terms we might think of this as somebody in the earlier stages of their Buddhist "career".
And as I said supra-mundane right view is about discernment and and analysis, ie developing insight, direct knowledge, and wisdom.
So the distinction, according to the sutta, is about the stage of practice a person is at, and not about their status in the Buddhist community. And as I said the monk / layperson distinction is largely a cultural artefact anyway.
So people begin with the mundane, but it's a foundation for the supra-mundane, not a permanent position or role.
I am not talking about monk/layperson distinction. I am talking about the difference of goals between people practicing dhamma and that the two goals described in the sutta are described as equivalently valued goals.
There is nothing in the sutta that puts one above the other. They are both Right View.
Despite if You value one or the other higher. Which you obviously do. And that is fine.
But do not get that mixed up with what is actually written in that piece of text.
I don't think I'm the one getting mixed up here. As the names indicate supra-mundane clearly is above mundane, it's a progression. They are not separate goals or paths.
As ever it's a case of reading what a sutta actually says rather than imposing pre-conceived notions. Do you see?
@SpinyNorman said:
As ever it's a case of reading what a sutta actually says rather than imposing pre-conceived notions. Do you see?
Exactly. And Lokiya means in this world and loka uttara means outside this world not above or supra or better.
There is nothing other than the value created in your mind that makes one of these better than the other.
Do not be mislead by bad translations or by what you want words to mean or because you just do not want to loose the argument which is I find often the case with you.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited February 2015
I don't understand the argument here. Mundane right view is still right view as is supra-mundane right view.
One is an intellectual understanding and the other is direct realization.
I can see a few ways rebirth could work in context of karma and think I have a fairly good understanding of the concept. However I do not recall the experience nor have I been able to confirm it with direct realization.
How all things are really the same process is a different matter as through walking meditation I have been able to feel and perhaps even witness rather than understand the concept.
One view is not better than the other but it does seem to be about progression.
@ourself said:> One is an intellectual understanding and the other is direct realization.> One view is not better than the other but it does seem to be about progression.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Victorious, I think it may be nice if just occasionally, you were to interact in a way that leaves room to ponder, rather than the inference that you know everything and everyone else is wrong. No matter what your OPINION, it is always preferable to give others the benefit of the doubt...
@federica said:
Victorious, I think it may be nice if just occasionally, you were to interact in a way that leaves room to ponder, rather than the inference that you know everything and everyone else is wrong. No matter what your OPINION, it is always preferable to give others the benefit of the doubt...
Hmmm. That I think is a bit unfair really.
Because even if I argue my point now it is only a matter of my personal opinion right? Which is that I assume everybody else wrong? And my argument would then seal that assumption.
And since there is no real example to discuss arguing my point is pointless anyway? Because then judgement is in the eye of the beholder and not the factual situation.
Interesting.
If you really want to revise my opinion and teach me something I humbly accept the opportunity.
But then please make it fair. Give me an example.
And come to discussion prepared to change your opinion too.
Kindly
Victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
DO explains the cause and effect through three lifetimes?
or
DO explains cause and effects through moment to moment?
The two seem to be the same? If the first is true, then the second must be true. And I can't envisage a case where the first is untrue but the second is also untrue. So it really just seems to boil down to whether we think the first is true.
Comments
Yes, it does turn out to be simple, but realising that can be a long journey. There are many kinds of simple, and finding one that really resonates can take a while.
I think when people come to Buddhism, explore Buddhism, try Buddhism, choose Buddhism, study Buddhism - call it what you will - the prevalent apparent desire is to know every possible thing about it, right now.
At the outset, everything provokes questions (which is good, i stimulates the desire to advance) but answering them all, there and then (or here and now!) is both impossible and impractical.
I know when I first began the walk, as it were, my questions came thick and fast - and my desire to 'get it', to absorb everything and understand what I beheld, was enormously frustrating!
Fo a while, (no jokes please) I really thought I was thick. I'd never get it. I was destined to reside perpetually, in the f**kwit realm....
Now, things are better, but I find I'm more relaxed when I go through a Sutta, and then read different peoples' interpretations.
Often, a Sutta is just a bit too much. For goodness' sake, who wants to work that hard - ?! - Some do, it seems!
Others are much simpler to digest and absorb, and reading extra mateial is unnecessary.
And one of my favourite, and most comforting Suttas, is the Simsapa Sutta.
If ever I start feeling bogged down, I remember that one.
I am not sure that satipathana sutta is all you need but it is a very good start and contains more or less all the instruction you need. But to understand it other sources are necessary unless you are a superbuddhist born and bred with pali and sanskrit in your blood.
And if you want a real easy approach a teacher is nice.
/Victor
I think people usually take what has worked for them and then apply it to everyone else, assuming "it works for me, why wouldn't it work for them?" I happen to get a great deal out of having a teacher and a sangha. Having spent the day with them yesterday, I was quite blessed, and many times tears came to my eyes just being with them and listening to my teacher do what he loves-teach. When I don't understand a teaching of any sort, I always have someone to go to who is on the same path (basically) as I am. At least we are going the same direction. It's much more comforting and confidence-inducing to my practice than it is for me to ask a huge group of strangers from all different traditions and countries. Some questions are best asked of such a group. But others are not. So it's funny to me that many people specifically resist having a teacher when I find it so helpful. Likewise others find it odd someone wouldn't study the sutras, wouldn't prostrate, and even people who don't meditate. It's just human nature to assume the best way for us is the best way for everyone.
But I wish we could get past it enough to at least understand that other people find other ways, and that's ok. What one finds of the utmost importance doesn't even enter the picture for someone else. As in the raft analogy, there are many ways to get the raft across, like @federica said, no one way is the only way.
I personally don't enjoy sutra study. Some of them are ok, I have many I like. But delving into them is just not something I do. When my teacher teaches, he teaches from the sutras sometimes but he has already broken them down and the insights he has into them are something I would never, ever glean on my own no matter how much I studying, chanted, meditated or picked them apart. So there is little value to me just randomly picking sutras off the internet to read through. I miss too much.
Since I think the teachings were slightly tailored to the audience in attendance at the time, I take the core elements and try to see what he's saying to me.
I'd venture as far as to say most turn out to be fairly logical and common sense so when they get confusing I wonder if they're supposed to be.
Sometimes he seems to be saying the devil is in the details and others he goes into detail so...
One can either read between the lines, take another's view as their own to save confusion or one can just practice Buddhism and save the ribbons and bows for those that enjoy that kind of thing.
A lot of sutras (it seems) were directed at the monastic community. So it's interesting to wonder what, if anything, of those he would apply to lay people.
I've never been one for too many formalities.
There were likely too many lay people interested in waking up in the midst of samsara so if he didn't include us, someone else would.
I mean, you wanna turn that wheel or not?
I don't see the relevance of this observation. We have the teachings and we can choose to apply them or not. Arguing that we get a free pass because we are lay-Buddhists seems very lame to me.
Exactly. Get those wagons rolling!
Yes, that's a good approach. I've found over time that I've focussed more on the suttas which relate directly to practice.
It is not lame. It is a matter of goals. Although it is a little bit simplistic way to see it either you try for unbinding or you are satisfied with living this life skillfully with no aspiration on nibbana.
The Great Forty sutta seems to imply both these paths are right view?
And this is in fact a division that many SL buddhists live by.
So it is not only applying a teaching or not but what of the teaching we choose to apply.
Again there is the division between Mahayana Goal and Theravada Goal.
Again it is how and what of the teachings we choose to apply.
/Victor
Cosmology based around a flat earth or the geographical Buddhist central mountain
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru
is basically, how can I say this kindly and skilfully? M m m . . . I feel the words I am looking for are 'blatantly ignorant twaddle'.
In a similar way theories of evolution based around
are also no comparison to Darwinian evolution.
I could be wrong.
However the evidence is not convincing but here it is for balance:
Have I done bad again?
Ah well, it's the hell realm for me in my next devolution . . . 
If You say so...
But no you are a good lobster.
^^^ Phew . . . thanks Victor was worried about this terrible Chinese/Japanese curse:
May you clear all your karma by next week and become enlightened
http://www.tantricdragon.com/shaktipat-attunements/
This infoTwaddle to put it politely is from a self styled shaktiput dealing 'tantric dragon' . . . I knew her when she was a mere goddess . . . now available by bat phone . . . maybe it is someone with similar pretensions of grandeur . . . who knows . . .
Anyway a quote, take it with a pinch of salt and reality:
Here be dragoons
and now back to the battlefields strewn with dead and crazy Zenniths . . .
I think you missed my point. What I said was lame is using this as a free pass, an excuse not to practice seriously. People can freely choose how seriously they want to practice, it's all there.
In your case it would be getting dropped into a pot of boiling water for a meal, my dear crustacean.
I doubt you think my SL peeps practice seriously. Praying to gods for good karma to be born in better condition to be able to reach Nibbana in the next life ... (yaay!)
Reciting pali scripture for protection against ghosts and black magic ... (I love this one)
Sacrificing flowers to buddha statues to pass the exam and offering money to monasteries to get their name on he top ten doner board outside the temple... (I had to ask them again just to make sure they were serious) etc...
See...?
Still they do the occasional good deed and try not to break the pansil...
The question is maybe who gets to decide what is serious or not?
I think it's pretty straightforward, the time and energy somebody puts into Buddhist practice, their commitment, how central it is in their life, how long they stick at it, and so on. I'm not talking about methods of practice but the degree of commitment involved.
Yes, and it is interesting to distinguish the kind of practice that is mainly just on the outside.
Like showing off with quotes from the sutras for instance..? Or making theatrical donations to the Buddhist centre..? Wearing Asian clothes…?
Ugh, quote no work.
That's quite a large leap if you are assuming that is what I meant. If I wanted to say "he was addressing monks, what he said doesn't apply to us lay people" that's what I would have said. When I said it was interesting to wonder what would apply to lay people, that's what I meant. We don't know, mostly. If Buddha were to come to America today, what would he tell all of us? Would he address us exactly the same as he addressed the monks, many of whom followed him for many years? Probably not. That doesn't mean the message wouldn't have been the same. I just wonder how/if it would have changed. Stop assuming that I'm lazy and looking for a free pass. That's hardly the case.
I wasn't assuming that you're lazy, but I have heard this argument used as an excuse before. Yes, it's clear that the Buddha taught in different ways to different people, but I think the message was the same.
I could see him expecting more discipline from monks but maybe more compassion from the lay person.
Again no.
This is one of the very important parts that Western Buddhists miss in the Dhamma.
According to asian way of seeing it the message was not the same to all people.
The Dhamma is in Theravada aimed at two types of devotees. There are those that walk the path to liberation and those that walk it for better station in samsara.
This distinction is very clear in SL and also in Thai Theravada at least.
The Great forty sutta
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn117
Goes through all the eightfold path marking each of them at "Twofold" For instance
So there is Right Intention, Right View, etc that is not factor of the path to liberation. According to this.
In the right view section it is described as ok to believe in gods, heaven and karma. In fact it is Wrong not to believe in them. So there...
There are also another suttas that concearn the destination of eight types of disciples of the Dhamma of which the four first are the Aryan Sangha and the others are more ordinary believers, after death.
Then again in Digha Nikaya Tevijja sutta Gotama teaches the path to union with Brahma.
So as you can see to different paths depending on your devotion.
Not really the same message.
/Victor
I don't agree with you based on what MN117 actually says. Mundane right view is based on correctly understanding the teachings, supra-mundane right view is based on directly knowing the reality, developing insight and wisdom.
Note the repeated reference to a "noble and taintless" mind in the supra-mundane sections, it's actually how how developed one's mind is, not about one's status in the Buddhist community. And of course this discourse is given to monks anyway, not a mixed audience.
The monk / lay-Buddhist distinction is essentially cultural anyway, this distinction is becoming progressively blurred in western Buddhism with more prominent lay teachers emerging.
Well you might not. So can you then explain what this passage has to do with understanding the teachings to reach unbinding?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? '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 contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
And what explanation do you have for the Tevijja sutta?
I just clearly explained the difference between mundane and supra-mundane path factors. It's based on how developed one's mind is, the degree of direct insight and wisdom.
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.
Because the belief in Karma, Heaven and Gods is in no way a requisite for the path to unbinding.
No matter how much your mind is developed in the understanding of them.
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (Karma) . There is this world & the next world (Heaven). There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings (Gods); there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
But the difference is still about how developed one's mind is, the degree of wisdom, not about one's status.
So you mean the text is wrong? That it is not Right View to believe in Gods. Karma and Heaven?
That a person of that persuasion is somehow lower in wisdom?
Where do you see the indication that that is a lower degree of wisdom to believe so according to the Dhamma?
What do you mean status? I thought we were speaking about the message of the Dhamma to different people.
And do you mean that people believing in Gods, Heaven and Karma, if they just evolved their understanding of these concepts could reach unbinding then?
Or do they need an entirly other understanding...?
for instance some of this?
And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Well, looking at your quote on supra-mundane right view we see the references to discernment, and analysis, ie developing insight, direct knowledge, rather than belief or an intellectual understanding of the teachings as with mundane right view. The distinction looks very clear to me.
so you keep saying but could you be a little bit more precise since it obviously is not as clear to me?
What exactly is the intellectual understanding or the belief of the teachings that you are talking about in the following?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (Karma) . There is this world & the next world (Heaven). There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings (Gods); there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
Could you point it out please?
Thanks
Victor
PS.
feeling a bit down winded and going to bed now. Catch ya tomorrow.
From the sutta quote mundane right view is about ritual, understanding the teachings on kamma and rebirth and respect for the wise. In modern terms we might think of this as somebody in the earlier stages of their Buddhist "career".
And as I said supra-mundane right view is about discernment and and analysis, ie developing insight, direct knowledge, and wisdom.
So the distinction, according to the sutta, is about the stage of practice a person is at, and not about their status in the Buddhist community. And as I said the monk / layperson distinction is largely a cultural artefact anyway.
So people begin with the mundane, but it's a foundation for the supra-mundane, not a permanent position or role.
I am not talking about monk/layperson distinction. I am talking about the difference of goals between people practicing dhamma and that the two goals described in the sutta are described as equivalently valued goals.
There is nothing in the sutta that puts one above the other. They are both Right View.
Despite if You value one or the other higher. Which you obviously do. And that is fine.
But do not get that mixed up with what is actually written in that piece of text.
/Victor
I don't think I'm the one getting mixed up here. As the names indicate supra-mundane clearly is above mundane, it's a progression. They are not separate goals or paths.
As ever it's a case of reading what a sutta actually says rather than imposing pre-conceived notions. Do you see?
Exactly. And Lokiya means in this world and loka uttara means outside this world not above or supra or better.
There is nothing other than the value created in your mind that makes one of these better than the other.
Do not be mislead by bad translations or by what you want words to mean or because you just do not want to loose the argument which is I find often the case with you.
/Victor
Kettle calling the pot black? Obviously we're not going to agree but that's fine.
As long as I am right!
lol.
One is an intellectual understanding and the other is direct realization.
I can see a few ways rebirth could work in context of karma and think I have a fairly good understanding of the concept. However I do not recall the experience nor have I been able to confirm it with direct realization.
How all things are really the same process is a different matter as through walking meditation I have been able to feel and perhaps even witness rather than understand the concept.
One view is not better than the other but it does seem to be about progression.
Exactly.
Yeah!
Exactly!
@Victorious, I think it may be nice if just occasionally, you were to interact in a way that leaves room to ponder, rather than the inference that you know everything and everyone else is wrong. No matter what your OPINION, it is always preferable to give others the benefit of the doubt...
Hmmm. That I think is a bit unfair really.
Because even if I argue my point now it is only a matter of my personal opinion right? Which is that I assume everybody else wrong? And my argument would then seal that assumption.
And since there is no real example to discuss arguing my point is pointless anyway? Because then judgement is in the eye of the beholder and not the factual situation.
Interesting.
If you really want to revise my opinion and teach me something I humbly accept the opportunity.
But then please make it fair. Give me an example.
And come to discussion prepared to change your opinion too.
Kindly
Victor
See PM.
Mundane and supra-mundane both are nothing* to get riled up about.
Moderator Note (For those who can't tell the difference):
Least said, soonest mended.
hmm..
so do you agree to :
DO explains the cause and effect through three lifetimes?
or
DO explains cause and effects through moment to moment?
@upekka, who are you asking? Look at thread age, and note date of last comment.
anyone who read the question have an answer
i wanted to bring a question related to DO and go through old threads and found this
so i thought it is better to bring it up and ask my question instead of starting a new thread
The two seem to be the same? If the first is true, then the second must be true. And I can't envisage a case where the first is untrue but the second is also untrue. So it really just seems to boil down to whether we think the first is true.