Page 10 of 22

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:17 pm
by tiltbillings
Dmytro wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:All right, buddho; however, "buddha" -- all by itself -- does not mean "one who awoke on his own".
It's hard to convey the sense of this middle voice form in English - I formulated it as I could. In Russian it's much easier to understand.
I understand what "middle voice"/reflective voice is. Given in Pali that attanopada is rarely used outside of poetry, your analysis is interesting, but so far it is not convincing. A.K. Warder (Introduction to Pali, page 314-5): "They are very rare in prose, a little less rare in verse."

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:01 am
by Assaji
Hi Tilt,

I learned a long time ago that my arguments are not convincing for you. I am posting this rather for other participants of the forum.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:04 am
by tiltbillings
Dmytro wrote:Hi Tilt,

I learned a long time ago that my arguments are not convincing for you. I am posting this rather for other participants of the forum.
The problem is you do not really make an argument for what you assert; so, yes, I am not often convinced by what you say. I am posting this just to let you know.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:53 am
by Assaji
tiltbillings wrote:The problem is you do not really make an argument for what you assert; so, yes, I am not often convinced by what you say.
Evidently we have very different references for arguments.
I mostly draw upon the earliest possible Pali sources which would clarify the question - including Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Vibhanga, etc.
You mostly draw upon English translations of the suttas and the opinions of Western scholars.

Since the basic Western commentary - Pali-English dictionary - is already embedded in your referential basis, and you don't recognize the authority of early Pali exegetical texts, we can agree on the simple and obvious statements from the Sutta, and not much more than that.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:30 am
by tiltbillings
Dmytro wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The problem is you do not really make an argument for what you assert; so, yes, I am not often convinced by what you say.
Evidently we have very different references for arguments.
I mostly draw upon the earliest possible Pali sources which would clarify the question - including Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Vibhanga, etc.
You mostly draw upon English translations of the suttas and the opinions of Western scholars.
Not necessarily so; however, appealing to the texts you referenced is not without its historical problems.
Since the basic Western commentary - Pali-English dictionary - is already embedded in your referential basis, and you don't recognize the authority of early Pali exegetical texts, we can agree on the simple and obvious statements from the Sutta, and not much more than that.
It is quite something. Next you'll tell me what I had for dinner and what my favorite color is. I have no problem with the authority of the "early" exegetical texts, but I do not see them as being the necessary final word on what is found in the suttas, and I have yet to see anyone here make an actual case that the suttas must, without question in all cases, be filtered through the "early Pali exegetical texts" to truly understand what they are saying. And certainly neither you nor Geoff have presented a reasonable counter argument to what I have presented, which is that in the suttas the Buddha taught that bodhi, awakening, he attained we can attain.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:15 am
by Assaji
tiltbillings wrote:I have no problem with the authority of the "early" exegetical texts, but I do not see them as being the necessary final word on what is found in the suttas, and I have yet to see anyone here make an actual case that the suttas must, without question in all cases, be filtered through the "early Pali exegetical texts" to truly understand what they are saying.
Did I say that these texts are necessary the final word?
I will repeat - I mostly draw upon the earliest possible Pali sources. The earlier the text, the more reliable it is. If the suttas don't give a clearcut definition of something, then the next best choice are early exegetical texts. After that, the next choice is Atthakatha, etc. The modern works are usually least reliable.

So clearly there's a difference in our referential bases.

Since the suttas are quite laconic, there's necessarily a filter for their full understanding - be it Pali-English dictionary, early exegetical works, or just trendy guesswork.
It's better to choose the filters with care.
And certainly neither you nor Geoff have presented a reasonable counter argument to what I have presented, which is that in the suttas the Buddha taught that bodhi, awakening, he attained we can attain.
Did I present a counter argument? I pointed out a contradiction in the Ven. Bodhi's passage you quoted.

Surely we can attain bodhi, as defined in Niddesa, but that would be only a part of the Samma-sambodhi of the Buddha.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:52 am
by ancientbuddhism
Dmytro wrote:Since the suttas are quite laconic...
The suttas are that vague to you, really?

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:01 am
by vinasp
Hi everyone,

"Bhikkhus, these eight things, developed and cultivated, if unarisen do not
arise apart from the appearance of a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly
Enlightened One. What eight? Right view ... right concentration. These
eight things ..." [ BB, CD, p.1533, SN 45.14]

My very controversial interpretation.

The arising of the path is stream-entry. The noble eightfold path is the stream.
The path only arises on the appearance of a Tathagata. This means that the awakened
mind must appear first. Then the process of transformation can begin. It takes, on
average, about two weeks.

The stream-enterer is said to be destined for awakening. He does not have to do
anything, it is all automatic. The process completes itself. In fact, it cannot
be stopped or prevented. So, everything is already decided in the moment of the
opening of the Dhamma Eye.

Regards, Vincent.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
by Assaji
ancientbuddhism wrote:The suttas are that vague to you, really?
Did I say that they are vague to me?

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:55 am
by tiltbillings
Dmytro wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:The suttas are that vague to you, really?
Did I say that they are vague to me?
He said, laconically.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:30 pm
by ancientbuddhism
Dmytro wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:The suttas are that vague to you, really?
Did I say that they are vague to me?
Dymtro wrote: Since the suttas are quite laconic, there's necessarily a filter for their full understanding - be it Pali-English dictionary, early exegetical works, or just trendy guesswork.
This is your statement. Is it because the suttas are vague (laconic in the sense of terse to the point of cryptic?) to you, that you prefer as your referential basis “the authority of early Pali exegetical texts.”?

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:03 pm
by Assaji
ancientbuddhism wrote:
Dymtro wrote: Since the suttas are quite laconic, there's necessarily a filter for their full understanding - be it Pali-English dictionary, early exegetical works, or just trendy guesswork.
This is your statement. Is it because the suttas are vague (laconic in the sense of terse to the point of cryptic?) to you, that you prefer as your referential basis “the authority of early Pali exegetical texts.”?
I don't prefer as my referential basis “the authority of early Pali exegetical texts.” Please read carefully.

I wonder why my personal attitudes interest you so much. My statements were to explain my approach to interpretation of Pali terms, in this case - "bodhi". I still hope for the discussion of hermeneutic approaches on this forum.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:49 pm
by ancientbuddhism
Dmytro wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
Dymtro wrote: Since the suttas are quite laconic, there's necessarily a filter for their full understanding - be it Pali-English dictionary, early exegetical works, or just trendy guesswork.
This is your statement. Is it because the suttas are vague (laconic in the sense of terse to the point of cryptic?) to you, that you prefer as your referential basis “the authority of early Pali exegetical texts.”?
I don't prefer as my referential basis “the authority of early Pali exegetical texts.” Please read carefully.

I wonder why my personal attitudes interest you so much. My statements were to explain my approach to interpretation of Pali terms, in this case - "bodhi". I still hope for the discussion of hermeneutic approaches on this forum.
Good earth! I didn’t intend to overreach into your personal space, rather I’m just trying to understand what the disconnect is with what is evident in the suttas mentioned.

To quote the aṭṭha to a sutta is relatively easy, but as to hermeneutical approaches for discussing it there is consideration of the context in the sutta, other readings, its relevance to other materials and looking at what those pesky academics have to say with their trendy guesswork.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:35 pm
by daverupa
ancientbuddhism wrote:as to hermeneutical approaches for discussing it there is consideration of the context in the sutta, other readings, its relevance to other materials and looking at what those pesky academics have to say with their trendy guesswork.
As to trendy guesswork, we can quote a delightfully non-laconic sentence from page 20 of Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, by Raymond E. Brown S.S, which you mentioned earlier:
The effort of a few in their rhetorical overkill to demean historical criticism because it is not all-sufficient represents a danger of the recrudescence of the disdain for the historical that has too often marked theoretical thought.

Re: Path to Buddhahood

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:18 pm
by Nyana
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:If you can't support your opinion with a quotation from a Theravāda treatise then, in the context of this forum, it's reasonable to consider it a novel, speculative opinion.
You can consider what I have said however you wish. It does not matter to me, but what is rather evident other than merely gainsaying what I have said, you have, in fact, offered no actual sutta rebuttal to what I have said, which – according to your claims – I would think you would be able to easily do. But rather than an actual textual discussion, all we are getting from you here is merely gainsaying, which really does not make for much of a dialogue.
Your inability to locate sutta references which explicitly state that a buddha's awakening is qualitatively different from that of an arahant disciple is insufficient to establish your conclusion that: "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha." In short: you haven't proven anything.

Your obstinate unwillingness to simply acknowledge that your conclusion is both speculative and novel is rather hilarious.