Essential Right View

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Essential Right View

Postby phil » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:02 am

Hi all

Sorry for not having read the whole thread.

Personally, I think it is best to think of the essential [*]wrong [*] view. So the view that deeds do not bear fruit, actively holding to it, promoting it to oneself and others, is essential wrong view. Having the right view, unshakably, that deeds do bear fruit feels different to me, somehow. I know there are times I doubt it, and that certainly doesn't make me feel that I'm not a good Buddhist, it is just natural moments of doubt that will almost certainly continue to arise for me. So there will not be unshakable right view of even that level.

But that isn't to say that there will be the wrong view that acts in a belief that there are no fruits to one's deeds, that is certain there is no rebirth so acts in a morally depraved way with no fear of the consesquences.

So it seems to me that moments of not-having right view do not equal moments of having wrong view. I am more concerned about not having wrong view than I am about having right view, because having right view, unshakably, is to be an Ariyan. I don't have Ariyan aspirations, personally. (See other thread.) I don't know if that makes any sense.

Metta,

Phil
I hope that every time I post it will be accompanied by a wish for the wellbeing of everyone in this sangha and all beings.
(so I don't have to write "metta" every time!)


Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)
User avatar
phil
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: Essential Right View

Postby AdvaitaJ » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:14 am

phil wrote:So it seems to me that moments of not-having right view do not equal moments of having wrong view.


Phil,

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think we share equivalent views. It is obvious that I do not (yet) have Right View. However, I will state with equal conviction that I also do not possess wrong view; I simply don't know. I do not yet know from direct personal experience the insights that will reveal the reality of rebirth or the multi-lifetime nature of kamma. (I am, however, very comfortable with the concept of current life-time kamma.)

Regards: AdvaitaJ
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.
Li Bai
User avatar
AdvaitaJ
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Essential Right View

Postby Prasadachitta » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:08 am

AdvaitaJ wrote:
If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think we share equivalent views. It is obvious that I do not (yet) have Right View. However, I will state with equal conviction that I also do not possess wrong view; I simply don't know. I do not yet know from direct personal experience the insights that will reveal the reality of rebirth or the multi-lifetime nature of kamma. (I am, however, very comfortable with the concept of current life-time kamma.)

Regards: AdvaitaJ


Hi Advaitaj,

It is my understanding that the suttas describe enlightened monks (those monks with super mundane insight) who do not actually have any memories of past lives. This indicates to me that enlightenment does not need direct knowledge of past lives to occur.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Essential Right View

Postby pink_trike » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:24 am

zavk wrote:Hi friends,

Mike's post reminded about something I read. I remember reading about the qualification sammā. Sammā is usually translated as 'right'. But I believe it also means 'togetherness' or 'to be connected in one' or something like that (Maybe someone more learned can elaborate on this). This suggests to me that sammā is not just simply about establishing what is 'right' as opposed to 'wrong'. Sammā ditthi is not simply about right or wrong view. Rather, sammā (as 'togetherness'; 'to be connected in one) points to the need to incorporate the development of view into the noble eightfold path. And as we all know, the path includes other factors like effort, action, and speech.

It seems to me, then, that Right View isn't just about epistemology (what is right or not, what can be known or not) but also about ontology (what one is) and ethics (what one ought to do). Questions about right/wrong and knowledge are important, but the answers to these questions are to be discovered not simply in discourse but in what we do, the way we behave, how we live.

This then suggests that having Right View about kamma and rebirth is not just about establishing whether rebirth is right/wrong or knowable or not. This is not to say that it is useless to reflect on rebirth. Rather, it suggests that all the effort spent on discussing and analysing rebirth does not necessary lead one to Right View. Even if one has a nuanced argument about Right View that is supported by all the suttas, until that person starts to live with Right Action, Speech, etc, that view about rebirth is not "Right'. Nor is that person any closer to the truth of rebirth than another who doesn't talk about it.

This also suggests to me that until we gain deep insight into rebirth, we can adopt rebirth in ways that are not simply based on right/wrong, true/false. Perhaps, we can adopt rebirth as a kind of guiding narrative, a guiding metaphor, for us to live our lives and actions. If rebirth is to be realised, it realised through our actions; it is realised in the way our lives pan out. Right View is thus established in the context of our actions.

Metta,
zavk


Samma2: (indecl.) [Vedic samyac (=samyak) & sam¨.s "connected, in one".

I would suggest that rather than "right" which is a static, dualistic term - that "integral" would better describe the view that is being encouraged. Integral implies a dynamic harmony...a consistency with the Whole, the Way, or "just what is". Rather than the "right" that is the opposite of "wrong". We're talking about good medicine here, and good medicine is always conditional, specific to circumstances and pre-existing patterns. Good medicine is never "one size fits all" (except in allopathic, corporate medical systems).
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: martinfrank and 7 guests