What is right view?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: What is right view?

Postby chownah » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:43 pm

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

What does it all mean ? Why all this talk about the ceasing of the eye ? This is my understanding. The expression "six-spheres" (salayatana) is used for one of the links of dependent origination. Here it is usually understood to mean the six internal sense spheres - the eye, the ear, the nose .... the mind. This is because everyones first understanding of dependent origination is as an explanation of rebirth. When you are reborn you acquire a new body and therefore a new set of six senses.
However, the real understanding of dependent origination is very different from this. It is an understanding in which each link can be seen in the present, depends on ignorance, and is capable of ceasing. The understanding of the link "six-spheres" as the actual six senses is a major barrier to achieving this alternative understanding of dependent origination.
This is why the teachings go to great lengths to set-up an alternative understanding of "the eye", "the visible object", "the ear", "sounds", and so on. And this alternative understanding is one in which "the eye" can, and does, cease. What is this alternative understanding of "the eye" ? Here we run into a major problem. The teachings never actually say what the alternative understanding is. Since it is really quite simple they could easily say it explicitly but they don't. Why not ? Because this is the key to the higher understanding of the teachings. What they do is to set up a problem which everyone who is trying to understand the teachings must grapple with and solve. Knowledge of the teachings is not enough, a monk must have insight into his own mind in order to find that which is called "the eye" and which ceases. Understanding this is equivalent to becoming a stream-winner.

Best wishes, Vincent.

Vinsasp,
Seems that you are entirely off topic now. Perhaps you should start a thread on DO or whatever if that is what you are wanting to discuss instead of trying to cram this into a thread on right view.

Just an idea, not a criticism.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is right view?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:56 pm

I always thought that the beauty of Buddha's teachings was that unlike many other philosophies, which attempt to tell you what right view and right action is in all situations, Buddha explains that there IS a right view, and gives you a practice leading to its realisation. He explains some wrong views to avoid, but doesn't tell you exactly what is correct to think or do, because he realises that there's no one fixed view for an unconditioned existence.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: What is right view?

Postby seanpdx » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:54 pm

"The Notion Of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism", Paul Fuller, 2005
seanpdx
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: What is right view?

Postby nowheat » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:31 pm

seanpdx wrote:"The Notion Of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism", Paul Fuller, 2005

That's one expensive book! Have you read it? The "product description" says...

Are we to understand right-view as a correction of wrong-views (the opposition understanding) or is the aim of the Buddhist path the overcoming of all views, even right-view (the no-views understanding)? The author argues that neither approach is correct. Instead, he suggests that the early texts do not understand right-view as a correction of wrong-view, but as a detached order of seeing, completely different from the attitude of holding to any view, wrong or right.


A distinction is being made there between "the no-views understanding" and "a detatched order of seeing" -- a distinction I'm not quite comprehending. And at $180 for a volume, one I'm not likely to pick up the distinction from reading the book (though I suppose there's always interlibrary loan to consider).

So I was wondering if you'd read it and could explain the difference?
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: What is right view?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:37 pm

Are we to understand right-view as a correction of wrong-views (the opposition understanding) or is the aim of the Buddhist path the overcoming of all views, even right-view (the no-views understanding)? The author argues that neither approach is correct. Instead, he suggests that the early texts do not understand right-view as a correction of wrong-view, but as a detached order of seeing, completely different from the attitude of holding to any view, wrong or right.


Isn't the latter the same as 'the overcoming of all views'? I agree in part, but I think a point is missed. No one ever holds a view literally; to think one does so is a mistake in interpreting language, like thinking that a stream can hold a fish. However, views can be more or less correct or perhaps skillful as expressed.

Buddha's views were always skillful when expressed, but that doesn't mean they sat in his mind unmoving, any more than do fish in a stream.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: What is right view?

Postby seanpdx » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:13 pm

nowheat wrote:
seanpdx wrote:"The Notion Of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism", Paul Fuller, 2005

That's one expensive book! Have you read it? The "product description" says...

Are we to understand right-view as a correction of wrong-views (the opposition understanding) or is the aim of the Buddhist path the overcoming of all views, even right-view (the no-views understanding)? The author argues that neither approach is correct. Instead, he suggests that the early texts do not understand right-view as a correction of wrong-view, but as a detached order of seeing, completely different from the attitude of holding to any view, wrong or right.


A distinction is being made there between "the no-views understanding" and "a detatched order of seeing" -- a distinction I'm not quite comprehending. And at $180 for a volume, one I'm not likely to pick up the distinction from reading the book (though I suppose there's always interlibrary loan to consider).

So I was wondering if you'd read it and could explain the difference?


It's one of the books I'm in the middle of reading. The product description is not, of course, going to give anyone a good idea of the author's thesis or conclusion, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't comprehend the distinction. But there is, in fact, a very definite distinction, and the author has a lot of very illuminating things to say about ditthi in general, and sammaditthi in particular. Even though I have yet to finish it, it has given me a different (better?) understanding of how to interpret both the teachings on views, and other teachings.

This is the first paragraph of the author's conclusion:

In conclusion, it is my argument that the Pali canon teaches the
transcendence of views. According to the opposition understanding,
right-view is opposed to wrong-view. I do not think that the texts
that I have been discussing understand the notion of ditthi in this
way. Right-view is not a correction of wrong-view. It is not a pro-
attitude, or acquaintance with Buddhist doctrine. It is not /another/
view. I also do not think that these texts teach the rejection of all
views. It is not all views that should be abandoned, but all
attachment to views. The no-views understanding and the understanding
I am proposing would amount to something similar, if the attainment
of right-view did not have a transformative effect. Right-view
apprehends both what 'is' and 'ought' to be done, in other words:
seeing things as they are has value, this is right-view. I am arguing
that samma-ditthi apprehends how things are /and/ is a remedy for
craving.


In essence, he is arguing that samma-ditthi is not merely a "factually correct view". Rather, he argues the case that "right view" is a right way of viewing. This sits well with the Buddha's focus on experience over ontology (which I believe is covered in another paper/book), and indeed, if one comes to realise that the Buddha snubbed his nose at the brahminic focus on ontological "truth", it seems almost self-evident that the Buddha would not be teaching "right view" in a similarly ontological sense. Anyway, I could probably go on and on, but hopefully this gives you an idea of where the author is going.

So don't cling to views. Even views that are ostensibly "factually correct". There is, of course, a bit more to it. If you're really interested, send me a private message.
seanpdx
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: What is right view?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:39 pm

Hi Sean,

Thank you very much for posting the extract. That expresses (much more clearly) what I have tried to say in earlier posts:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2689&start=60#p39494
"...right view not being a particular view. Just having wisdom operating..."
as evidenced by various stories about teachers such as Ajahn Chah:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 622#p36595
"...As Ajahn Tiradhammo tells it, Ajahn Chah didn't have a "view" or a "method", he just responded with wisdom."

I must pick up the book at my library and read the rest of it...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What is right view?

Postby seanpdx » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:37 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sean,

Thank you very much for posting the extract. That expresses (much more clearly) what I have tried to say in earlier posts:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2689&start=60#p39494
"...right view not being a particular view. Just having wisdom operating..."
as evidenced by various stories about teachers such as Ajahn Chah:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 622#p36595
"...As Ajahn Tiradhammo tells it, Ajahn Chah didn't have a "view" or a "method", he just responded with wisdom."

I must pick up the book at my library and read the rest of it...

Metta
Mike


It's well worth a read (or two or three). Table of contents:

* Introduction
* The content of wrong-view
* The content of right-view
* The way wrong-view functions
* The way right-view functions
* The transcendence of views
* Views and non-attachment
* Conclusion
seanpdx
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Coyote, Nicolas, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests