Re: MN 117: a counterfeit
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:17 am
Thank you, Mike.
Metta,
Retro.
Metta,
Retro.
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
It wasn't specifically directed at you.Cittasanto wrote:I didn't say that paper was true or beneficial, I only said it was "excellently" researched.nibbuti wrote:Something that is well researched isn't necessarily true and beneficial only on account of being well researched.
There is a refutation of Ven. Analayo's paper here
If there can be "two kinds of happiness" where "the happiness without taints is foremost", why cannot it also be so for Right View?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."
What would right view with taints be as opposed to right view without taints. I assume, then, that right view with taints, being right view is important and probably necessary in one's practice, given that one cannot simply jump to right view without taints until one has gained that level of practice/insight.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Another sutta worth considering in conjunction with MN 117, vis-a-vis the with/without asava distinction...
If there can be "two kinds of happiness" where "the happiness without taints is foremost", why cannot it also be so for Right View?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."
Metta,
Retro.
I'm surprised you ask me, and not MN 117... the sutta is clear and addresses this very point.tiltbillings wrote:What would right view with taints be as opposed to right view without taints.
I sense there's a dead horse you wish to flog here, but my interest is not in that - my interest is on topic, and is about refuting the OP's notion "that the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta has been tampered with material from the Abhidhamma and some of the late works found in the Khuddaka Nikāya, that it contains a number of statements which are in direct contradiction with the teachings found elsewhere in the four Nikāyas, and that it seeks to despise the original teaching of the Buddha to promote terminology and theories of late origin."tiltbillings wrote:I assume, then, that right view with taints, being right view is important and probably necessary in one's practice, given that one cannot simply jump to right view without taints until one has gained that level of practice/insight.
I asked you, or anyone else who may care to answer.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
I'm surprised you ask me, and not MN 117... the sutta is clear and addresses this very point.tiltbillings wrote:What would right view with taints be as opposed to right view without taints.
I stay away from dead horses. They tend to stink. Now that the "counterfeit question has been pretty much discarded, I am asking this question given that various opinions about what this sutta is saying have been put forth on this forum. Sorry, did not mean to touch a raw nerve here.I sense there's a dead horse you wish to flog here, but my interest is not in that - my interest is on topic, and is about refuting the OP's notion "that the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta has been tampered with material from the Abhidhamma and some of the late works found in the Khuddaka Nikāya"tiltbillings wrote:I assume, then, that right view with taints, being right view is important and probably necessary in one's practice, given that one cannot simply jump to right view without taints until one has gained that level of practice/insight.
At what point exactly was the actual topic "discarded", in preference for off-topic diversions? And who decided this? And on what basis?...tiltbillings wrote:Now that the "counterfeit question has been pretty much discarded...
Perhaps if you wish to initiate an exploration on whether or not "one cannot simply jump to right view without taints until one has gained that level of practice/insight", you can kindly start your own topic to do so.tiltbillings wrote:...I am asking this question given that various opinions about what this sutta is saying have been put forth on this forum.
Not a diversion. Actually, it would be directly to the point of what the terms meant, now that we are not looking at them through Abhidhamma filters: "If there can be "two kinds of happiness" where "the happiness without taints is foremost", why cannot it also be so for Right View."retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,At what point exactly was the actual topic "discarded", in preference for off-topic diversions? And who decided this? And on what basis?...tiltbillings wrote:Now that the "counterfeit question has been pretty much discarded...
Maybe.Perhaps if you wish to initiate an exploration on whether or not "one cannot simply jump to right view without taints until one has gained that level of practice/insight", you can kindly start your own topic to do so.tiltbillings wrote:...I am asking this question given that various opinions about what this sutta is saying have been put forth on this forum.
Being human and all, mistakes are made. It shan't happen again.)I'm surprised you ask me
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
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."
I would just note that the Commentaries interpret that section in MN 44 somewhat differently, ascribing the abandonment of the rāgānusaya (latent tendency to lust) to the specific attainment of anāgāmimagga (Non-Returner's Path (citta)). That's the Abhidhammic lokuttara citta model governing the Comy, but the plain reading of the MN 117 conception of anāsava does not appear to lend itself to either being the source for the Abhidhammic model or being influenced by the Abhidhammic model....yaṃ etarahi evarūpā anāsavā sukhā vedanā vedeti
...since he now feels such taintless pleasant feelings
I believe it is possible, going by the discussion of Right View in MN 41 that I posted a little earlier. It appears that if one craves for good rebirth, one of the necessary conditions for the desire to materialise would have to include the 3 conducts in accordance with the Dhamma. One of such 3 conducts is the mental conduct of Right View, defined in MN 117's standard pericope of "There is what is given ... etc etc".If there can be "two kinds of happiness" where "the happiness without taints is foremost", why cannot it also be so for Right View?
I think actually this is a fairly cut and dried case of later textual addition. It checks two very signficant boxes:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
Thanks for sharing, but I'm unable to ascertain from venerable Dhammanando's quote whether the words 'sāsava' and 'anāsava', are the actual words used in Petakopadesa and Nettipakarana to represent 'mundane' and 'supramundane', or whether those treatises use their own words to reflect these notions, which are then in some way related back to MN 117's own terms - 'sāsava' and 'anāsava'. (Oh for the days when Ven.D was here instead of in the hills!)
The fact that words found in a particular sutta may also happen to appear in subsequent treatises doesn't seem surprising in and of itself. As for the matter of these terms appearing in this sutta alone seems of little more significance than the fact that in the 12907 posts I've made to date on this forum, that I'm sure there's some posts which include a particular word that is unique to that post (vis-a-vis the 'canon' of my posts), that does not appear elsewhere in my other 12906 posts.
If there's anything I'm missing here, feel free to help me join the dots. At this point though, I do not understand the full importance of it.
Metta,
Retro.
Following Ven Anālayo, whose scholarship on this is far better than anything else presented here or elsewhere linked on the subject, I think you are probably correct. The question is: how important is it one way or the other?Anders Honore wrote: I think actually this is a fairly cut and dried case of later textual addition. It checks two very signficant boxes:
a) material with no parallel in either Agamas nor Tibetan collections (this one, it seems, is actually preserved in Tibetan too, so the strength of the comparison is quite heavy).
b) Proclaims tenets that are not found anywhere else in the canon(s).
Hi Anders HonoreAnders Honore wrote:I think actually this is a fairly cut and dried case of later textual addition. It checks two very signficant boxes:
a) material with no parallel in either Agamas nor Tibetan collections (this one, it seems, is actually preserved in Tibetan too, so the strength of the comparison is quite heavy).
b) Proclaims tenets that are not found anywhere else in the canon(s).
The above aspects of wisdom are stock in the suttas, being the Five Faculties, the Five Powers & the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.And what is the right view that is 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 of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Similarly, most of the terms above are found in descriptions of the path & the jhanas.And what is the right resolve that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, (mental) fixity, transfixion, focused awareness & verbal fabrications of 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 resolve that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
There may be an exaggeration.Anders Honore wrote:Really, what more do you want for proof of it being a later addition? I suppose if some heavy grammatical analysis showed that the grammar shows signs of being later that would seal the deal, but other than that I don't see what more you could ask for if we are to acknowledge any suttas have been tampered with at all.
edit: And in this case, we also have a clear motive for the editorial addition. Although I take point that for all we know, the abidhammikas took their inspiration from the [already edited?] sutta rather than editing it back into the sutta. But it does have the look of an addition that is not exactly random.