Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
by danieLion » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:14 pm
Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave
I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.
It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?
"You stop me, obviously with a demand for a personal explanation. 'How is it, you write, 'that you reject with such immitigable scorn the very foundation-stones of Buddhism, and yet refer disciples enthusiastically to the technique of some of its subtlest super-structures?'
I laff."
-Aleister Crowley,
Magick Without Tears,
Chapter XXVII: Structure of Mind Based on that of Body (Haeckel and Bertrand Russell)"Questions of reality are too important to be left to the scientists."
-Paul Feyerbend,
The Tyranny of Science, p. 51 (Polity: 2012).
-
danieLion
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon
-
by Sylvester » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:07 am
danieLion wrote:Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave
I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.
It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?
Yes, I believe so.
-
Sylvester
-
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
-
by danieLion » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:43 am
Sylvester wrote:danieLion wrote:Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave
I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.
It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?
Yes, I believe so.
Then I think we're of one accord--or close enough.
"You stop me, obviously with a demand for a personal explanation. 'How is it, you write, 'that you reject with such immitigable scorn the very foundation-stones of Buddhism, and yet refer disciples enthusiastically to the technique of some of its subtlest super-structures?'
I laff."
-Aleister Crowley,
Magick Without Tears,
Chapter XXVII: Structure of Mind Based on that of Body (Haeckel and Bertrand Russell)"Questions of reality are too important to be left to the scientists."
-Paul Feyerbend,
The Tyranny of Science, p. 51 (Polity: 2012).
-
danieLion
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon
-
by danieLion » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:57 am
"You stop me, obviously with a demand for a personal explanation. 'How is it, you write, 'that you reject with such immitigable scorn the very foundation-stones of Buddhism, and yet refer disciples enthusiastically to the technique of some of its subtlest super-structures?'
I laff."
-Aleister Crowley,
Magick Without Tears,
Chapter XXVII: Structure of Mind Based on that of Body (Haeckel and Bertrand Russell)"Questions of reality are too important to be left to the scientists."
-Paul Feyerbend,
The Tyranny of Science, p. 51 (Polity: 2012).
-
danieLion
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon
-
by Sekha » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:41 pm
danieLion wrote:"In early Buddhist mediation theory, faith," he says, "is not what's required to overcome doubt, but rather investigation" (41:07-41:23).
Unfortunately, even some very highly developed meditation teachers don't seem to have understood this. Fortunately, some others did.
-
Sekha
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
-
Return to Early Buddhism
Who is online
Registered users: Benjamin, Bing [Bot], chownah, dxm_dxm, Google [Bot], Hickersonia, K.Dhamma, Lazy_eye, Majestic-12 [Bot], rahul3bds, reflection, Sam Vara
