Visuddhimagga a mistake?

[mirco]

Split from: Classic commentaries - where to start? viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4340

But remember:

There are fundamental mistakes in the Visuddhimagga

concerning Right Practice/Effort and Right Collectedness/Concentration.

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

[Virgo]

But remember:

There are fundamental mistakes in the Visuddhimagga concerning Right Collectedness (sammaa-samaadhi) / jhanas.

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

What are you talking about?

Kevin

[mikenz66]

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Presumably you mean one of the English translations? Those who read it in Pali, Burmese, Thai, Sinhala, etc, wouldn't have this problem, of course (not that I'm in any of those categories...). So it would have zero impact on teachings from the majority of Theravada teachers...

Mike

[Virgo]

But remember:

There are fundamental mistakes in the Visuddhimagga

concerning Right Practice/Effort and Right Collectedness/Concentration.

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Dear Micro,

Your posts are certainly welcome, but just so you know...

"The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature." - from the Guidelines for posting in this particular forum.

Kevin

[mirco]

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Presumably you mean one of the English translations? Those who read it in Pali, Burmese, Thai, Sinhala, etc, wouldn't have this problem, of course (not that I'm in any of those categories...). So it would have zero impact on teachings from the majority of Theravada teachers...Mike

No, I mean fifteen years after Buddhagosa had published it.

And yes, until now it has the enormous impact, that nowadays 95-98% of all Theravadan teachings,
those who back on the VM, are wrong and won't lead to nibbana.

Be well, Mirco

[mirco]

"The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature." - from the Guidelines for posting in this particular forum.

O.k. I see. Thanks. I'll shut up in here

[Virgo]

"The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature." - from the Guidelines for posting in this particular forum.

O.k. I see. Thanks. I'll shut up in here

Suit yourself.

[tiltbillings]

But remember:

There are fundamental mistakes in the Visuddhimagga

concerning Right Practice/Effort and Right Collectedness/Concentration.

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Would be kind enough to cite your sources for this claim (which would be appropriate for this section).

[mirco]

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Would be kind enough to cite your sources for this claim (which would be appropriate for this section).

O.k., let's start with 'parikamma-samaadhi' and 'upacaara-samaadhi' for instance. (Vis IV The first jhana)
If it is of any interest for the practise, why isn't it mentioned in any sutta?

Next could be 'nimitta' to use as an oject of meditation (Vis IV Detailed instructions for development)
Can it be found in the training instructions in the suttas?

Hmmm...

[tiltbillings]

About fifteen years after publishing the VM, the Venerables tried to straighten that out, but it had spread too fast.

Would be kind enough to cite your sources for this claim (which would be appropriate for this section).

O.k., let's start with parikamma-samaadhi and upacaara-samaadhi for instance.
If it is of any interest for the practise, why isn't it mentioned in any sutta?

This not answering the question I asked. You claimed that within 15 years after the VM was completed there were those who tried to stop it, and I asked you to cite your sources for this claim. It may be true, but it is news to me. This an historical claim. Litigating doctrine is not what I am asking to happen here. Your counter question can be asked, but in a more appropriate section. Basically, cite your sources for the 15 year claim. That is all I am asking.

[mirco]

You claimed that within 15 years after the VM was completed there were those who tried to stop it, and I asked you to cite your sources for this claim. It may be true, but it is news to me. This an historical claim.

I am very sorry, but I can't fullfill your needs. This fact I heard from a monk I trust during a dhamma talk.
No historical proofs from my side on that. Only blind faith.
I can ask him on that, but I'm pretty shure his answer will be:
"Stop pondering on that. Does it bring you any further in you medition process. Go sit."
Hmmm... I'm sorry.

[Goedert]

You claimed that within 15 years after the VM was completed there were those who tried to stop it, and I asked you to cite your sources for this claim. It may be true, but it is news to me. This an historical claim.

I am very sorry, but I can't fullfill your needs. This fact I heard from a monk I trust during a dhamma talk.
No historical proofs from my side on that. Only blind faith.
I can ask him on that, but I'm pretty shure his answer will be:
"Stop pondering on that. Does it bring you any further in you medition process. Go sit."
Hmmm... I'm sorry.

Oh friend,

Please don't make mistakes. Go ask that monk right away. Imagine if he is wrong in what he say! If he is wrong you could put other people out of the way by taking further what he say!

[tiltbillings]

You claimed that within 15 years after the VM was completed there were those who tried to stop it, and I asked you to cite your sources for this claim. It may be true, but it is news to me. This an historical claim.

I am very sorry, but I can't fullfill your needs. This fact I heard from a monk I trust during a dhamma talk.
No historical proofs from my side on that. Only blind faith.
I can ask him on that, but I'm pretty shure his answer will be:
"Stop pondering on that. Does it bring you any further in you medition process. Go sit."
Hmmm... I'm sorry.

Then it is not a fact until it can be supported in some meaningful way. Good to know where we stand here.

But, unless it has an actual historical basis, such a claim pushes towards slander, which is not particularly a wholesome thing.

[Ben]

In support of Tilt...
Its very important, particularly in this forum, that claims are supported by documentary evidence from the Tipitaka or the ancient commentaries. The reason why some people insist on providing evidence is so that we do not, inadvertently, put words into the Buddha's mouth or propagate an interpretation that is blatantly incorrect or is not consistent with the author and/or the historical evidence.
As has already mentioned, this sub-forum is a place specifically set up for the discussion of the Classical Theravada. The ancient canonical and commentarial literature,as well as the Abhidhamma, are considered authoritative for discussion purposes. The sub-forum allows our members to discuss the ancient texts without the noise of points of view that are inconsistent with the Mahavihara. The sub-forum was set up to fascilitate friendly discussion and to promote a deeper understanding of Classical Theravada, not to silence divergent points of view. Criticisms of the commentaries and abhidhamma are more appropriately conducted in some of our other sub-fora, such as 'Dhammic-free-for-all' and 'Theravada in the modern world'.
kind regards

Ben

[mirco]

You claimed that within 15 years after the VM was completed there were those who tried to stop it, and I asked you to cite your sources for this claim. It may be true, but it is news to me. This an historical claim.

This fact I heard from a monk I trust during a dhamma talk. No historical proofs from my side on that. Only blind faith. I can ask him on that, but I'm pretty shure his answer will be: "Stop pondering on that. Does it bring you any further in you medition process. Go sit." Hmmm... I'm sorry.

Oh friend, Please don't make mistakes. Go ask that monk right away. Imagine if he is wrong in what he say! If he is wrong you could put other people out of the way by taking further what he say!

Hi Goedert ,

thank you for inspiration. I asked that Monk and that clarified a lot. I was wrong, he had not said such things.
It was a misunderstanding.

His answer was like: "The VM is not all bad by any means and there is much to learn from it outside of the part concerning the meditation instructions."

Be well,
Mirco

[Goedert]

Hi Goedert ,

thank you for inspiration. I asked that Monk and that clarified a lot. I was wrong, he had not said such things.
It was a misunderstanding.

His answer was like: "The VM is not all bad by any means and there is much to learn from it outside of the part concerning the meditation instructions."

Be well,
Mirco

Hello friend mirco.

Yeah, the texts sometimes need complementation of oral instructions. Only a small number of people has the good faculties to understand the texts all alone. Thanks for spending your time asking the monk.

[mirco]

Dear Goedert,

now I got the direc answer from that monk, first was fram an assistant:

I didn't say that Buddhagosa realized that he made mistakes. What I said was
after about 15 years some other monks had had studied the original scriptures
and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with the suttas but the Vissudhi
Magga had become too popular to stop. Hope this clears this up for you.

That cleared up things for me.

Metta, always,
Mirco

[pilgrim]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected. I feel that is unnecessary. The VM is an elaboration and extrapolation of the Buddha's teachings. For e.g, the 2 0r 3 techniques of metta meditation is commonly practised throughout the Theravada world without controversy. But we forget that all these metta meditation techniques originates from the VM. You won't find instruction for metta meditation in the suttas.

[lojong1]

For e.g, the 2 0r 3 techniques of metta meditation is commonly practised throughout the Theravada world without controversy.

You won't find instruction for metta meditation in the suttas.

Has it crossed anyone else's mind that there might have been a really really good reason for this [intentional] omission?

[mikenz66]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected. I feel that is unnecessary...

Sure. Of course it's sensible to think carefully about any instructions, but I see no obvious reason to think that the interpretations of a particular modern teacher are more reliable than the interpretations of other modern or ancient teachers...

Mike