The causes for wisdom

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3467
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:47 pm

Interesting thing is that one can possess right view and still go to hell:

(iv) "But here some person abstains from killing living beings... and has right view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. MN136


So it seems that even if one possesses right view, one doesn't have to be an ariyan.



78. Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of wealth is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. AN1:8:78


Wisdom can decrease.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:31 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
'If it is merely a possibility that one attending appropriately may realize the fruit of stream-entry, then there is also a possibility that he may not. And all those who do not would count as instances of puthujjanas possessed of yoniso manasikāra. Hence yoniso manasikāra may be present in a puthujjana. . . . The commentary to this sutta defines the term twice, once giving the stock commentarial definition (the paragraph beginning: "tattha _yoniso manasikāro_ nāma upāyamanasikāro...") and once a context-specific one (notice the limiting adverb "ettha", "here"). It is only in the latter that sotāpattimagga is alluded to. In the general definition there's no limiting of yoniso mansikāra to ariyans,'

which neatly contradicts your claim that yoniso manasikara is apllicable only to ariya. Essentially the argument you made for the ariya only interpretation of yoniso manasikara has been shown via the commentaries and the suttas to be at best not well grounded.


I think Ven. Dhammanando may be mistaken in his interpretation of the commentarial gloss here. As for the Silavant Sutta, as I've already intimated, I'm somewhat noncommittal: it appears aberrant -- like a number of the other Suttas you've sited -- and in contradiction to other more established Suttas in the Canon. The tendency that some have to clinging to it only reflects the tenuous nature of the view they're trying to hold.

But as I've said, I'm open to a change of opinion. Just from my own reading of the Suttas I've always had the impression that there is an ariyan quality about the term, and I can understand how the tradition came to interpret it as such. It would be interesting to learn more about why Ven. Bodhi rejects the tradition here, and to gather a more compeling reason to support your view.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:07 pm

pulga wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
'If it is merely a possibility that one attending appropriately may realize the fruit of stream-entry, then there is also a possibility that he may not. And all those who do not would count as instances of puthujjanas possessed of yoniso manasikāra. Hence yoniso manasikāra may be present in a puthujjana. . . . The commentary to this sutta defines the term twice, once giving the stock commentarial definition (the paragraph beginning: "tattha _yoniso manasikāro_ nāma upāyamanasikāro...") and once a context-specific one (notice the limiting adverb "ettha", "here"). It is only in the latter that sotāpattimagga is alluded to. In the general definition there's no limiting of yoniso mansikāra to ariyans,'

which neatly contradicts your claim that yoniso manasikara is applicable only to ariya. Essentially the argument you made for the ariya only interpretation of yoniso manasikara has been shown via the commentaries and the suttas to be at best not well grounded.


I think Ven. Dhammanando may be mistaken in his interpretation of the commentarial gloss here.
Do you read the extremely difficult commentarial Pali? Ven Dhammanando, who does, might, indeed, be wrong, but given that he is highly learned in this, more so than anyone else I have seen on this forum, I rather doubt that he is wrong, and merely stating that he might be wrong is not an argument.

As for the Silavant Sutta, as I've already intimated, I'm somewhat noncommittal: it appears aberrant -- like a number of the other Suttas you've sited -- and in contradiction to other more established Suttas in the Canon.
Ah, the it-does-not-agree-with-my-point-of-view,-so-that-sutta-you-just-quoted-can-be-dismissed-as-aberrant argument, which suggests that you, in fact, have no argument. Interestingly, you have not referenced any other "established suttas" other than Vipassi, and even that does not support your position. The suttas I quoted, and I certainly could quote any number of others, are as established as any other sutta in the Nikayas.

But as I've said, I'm open to a change of opinion. Just from my own reading of the Suttas I've always had the impression that there is an ariyan quality about the term, and I can understand how the tradition came to interpret it as such.
The problem for you here is that Ven Dhammanando has put into context what the tradition -- via the commentary you referenced -- has said, which contradicts your point of view.

It would be interesting to learn more about why Ven. Bodhi rejects the tradition here, and to gather a more compeling reason to support your view.
One comment in the commentaries is not the whole of the tradition, and Ven Dhammanando already addressed that point.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3467
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:08 pm

pulga wrote: I've always had the impression that there is an ariyan quality about the term, and I can understand how the tradition came to interpret it as such. It would be interesting to learn more about why Ven. Bodhi rejects the tradition here, and to gather a more compeling reason to support your view.


Is right view (sammādiṭṭhi) always supramundane?
Is wisdom (paññā) always supramundane?

If not, then why can't yonisomanasikāro be mundane (at least in the beginning)?
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:39 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Do you read the extremely difficult commentarial Pali? Ven Dhammanando, who does, might, indeed, be wrong, but given that he is highly learned in this, more so than anyone else I have seen on this forum, I rather doubt that he is wrong, and merely stating that he might be wrong is not an argument.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to learn more from him later.

tiltbillings wrote:Ah, the it-does-not-agree-with-my-point-of-view,-so-that-sutta-you-just-quoted-can-be-dismissed-as-aberrant argument, which suggests that you, in fact, have no argument.
Does such an assessment apply to Ven. Analayo's critique of the Mahacattarisaka Sutta?

tiltbillings wrote:One comment in the commentaries is not the whole of the tradition.
Note that I said "here", i.e. with regards to yoniso manasikara.

One final note. You're much too hostile to have any satisfying exchange with. It may be a part of your personality and you may have no control over it, but please excuse me if I'm disinclined to respond to you. Feel free of course to respond to any of my posts.

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:09 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Is right view (sammādiṭṭhi) always supramundane?
Is wisdom (paññā) always supramundane?

If not, then why can't yonisomanasikāro be mundane (at least in the beginning)?


Hi Alex,

I'd recommend a reading of the Mahacattarisakasutta (M117). As for yonisomanasikāra I'm still too uncommitted about its use in the Suttas to say definitively that it can't be mundane, at least when it is applied to mundane matters, but it is worth noting that in the Sabbasavasutta (M2) the Buddha tells us that for one who knows and sees yonisomanasikāra and ayonisomanasikāra the ásavas are extinguished.
Last edited by pulga on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:26 pm

pulga wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Ah, the it-does-not-agree-with-my-point-of-view,-so-that-sutta-you-just-quoted-can-be-dismissed-as-aberrant argument, which suggests that you, in fact, have no argument.
Does such an assessment apply to Ven. Analayo's critique of the Mahacattarisaka Sutta?
You are going to provide a link to this? And you are going to give a brief, accurate synopsis of what Ven Analayo's point is?

As for Ven Analayo: "The resemblance in function between sati and attention is also reflected in the fact that wise attention (yoniso manasikara) parallels several aspects of satipatthana contemplation, such as directing attention to antidotes for the hindrances, becoming aware of the impermanent nature of the aggregates or the sense spheres, establishing the awakening factors, and contemplating the four noble truths.69

69 Wise attention (yoniso manasikara) is applied to antidotes for the hindrances at S V 105, can lead to realization by giving attention to the impermanent nature of the aggregates at S III 52 and the sense-spheres at S IV 142, establish the awakening factors at S V 94, and consists in contemplating the four noble truth at M I 9. Cf. also A V 115, where wise attention functions as "nutriment" for mindfulness and clear knowledge, which in turn act as nutriment for satipatthana. -- SATIPATTHANA, Pages 59-60.

What we see here with Ven Analayo's comments supports, not your position, but rather it supports the idea that yoniso manasikara is a tool for awakening and he seems not to find a problem with the texts which I could have just as easily quoted. What we see with Ven Analayo's comments is that yoniso manasikara is clearly a tool for awakening, not just an expression of awakening as you would have it.

tiltbillings wrote:One comment in the commentaries is not the whole of the tradition.
Note that I said "here", i.e. with regards to yoniso manasikara.
Thank you for the correction.

One final note. You're much too hostile to have any satisfying exchange with. It may be a part of your personality and you may have no control over it, but please excuse me if I'm disinclined to respond to you. Feel free of course to respond to any of my posts.
Sorry you feel I am being hostile, and if I have offended you, my apologies. I am certainly being very direct in response to your msgs, which very often side-step and ignore what is being said to and asked of you in response to your postings, and I am asking to you not ignore what being said to and asked of you, and I do not mean that to be hostile, but I am trying to see what the fullness of your argument is. Whether you respond further or not is, indeed, your choice.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:41 pm

Does such an assessment apply to Ven. Analayo's critique of the Mahacattarisaka Sutta?
Thanks to god-google, I tracked it down. http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg. ... risaka.pdf

Since the discourse in question does not discuss yoniso manasikara, your point here is that it is obviously a sutta that might be considered "aberrant." The problem with your argument here is that while Ven Analayo is making a carefully done study of the text in question, you simply raised the specter of possible aberrancy of the texts I quoted because they do not fit in with what you call the "established suttas," but the problem is you offered no support for the question of aberrancy and you quoted no "established suttas" that contradicted the point I have been making. And, as we see in the above quote from Ven Analayo's book, you would be dismissing a fair number of suttas as being aberrant.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:20 am

pulga wrote: . . . it is worth noting that in the Sabbasavasutta (M2) the Buddha tells us that for one who knows and sees yonisomanasikāra and ayonisomanasikāra the ásavas are extinguished.
And it is worth taking a look at what MN 2 actually has to say:

The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention." Ven Bodhi, in his translation of this text, provides these comments in the footnote MLDB 1169 FN 33:
Wise attention (yoniso manasikara) is glossed as attention that is the right means (upaya), on the right track (patha). It is explained as mental advertence, consideration, or preoccupation that accords with the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. . . . the destruction of the taints is for one who knows how to arouse wise attention and who sees to it that unwise attention does not arise.

Here we have Ven Bodhi telling us what the commentary to "Appropriate/wise attention & inappropriate/unwise attention” is saying. Both the sutta text and the commentary make it quite clear that yoniso manasikara is a skillful means that leads to awakening, and from that we can see that yoniso manasikara is not coterminous with awakening.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:43 am

tiltbillings wrote: Ven Bodhi, in his translation of this text, provides these comments in the footnote MLDB 1169 FN 33:
Wise attention (yoniso manasikara) is glossed as attention that is the right means (upaya), on the right track (patha). It is explained as mental advertence, consideration, or preoccupation that accords with the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. . . . the destruction of the taints is for one who knows how to arouse wise attention and who sees to it that unwise attention does not arise.

Here we have Ven Bodhi telling us what the commentary to "Appropriate/wise attention & inappropriate/unwise attention” is saying. Both the sutta text and the commentary make it quite clear that yoniso manasikara is a skillful means that leads to awakening, and from that we can see that yoniso manasikara is not coterminous with awakening.


But the commentarial position is that they are coterminous: yoniso manasikárena ca paññáya abhisamayo ahu (CDB 729). This is the traditional interpretation that Ven. Bodhi doesn't accept.

Truth here too is the truth that accords with the tilakkhana, i.e. it is ariyan: yoniso manasikara is "attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc." I suppose this is why the tradition holds that it arises jointly with paññá.

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:52 am

tiltbillings wrote:Since the discourse in question does not discuss yoniso manasikara, your point here is that it is obviously a sutta that might be considered "aberrant." The problem with your argument here is that while Ven Analayo is making a carefully done study of the text in question, you simply raised the specter of possible aberrancy of the texts I quoted because they do not fit in with what you call the "established suttas," but the problem is you offered no support for the question of aberrancy and you quoted no "established suttas" that contradicted the point I have been making. And, as we see in the above quote from Ven Analayo's book, you would be dismissing a fair number of suttas as being aberrant.


Looking over the sutta quotes you offered, I'm still inclined in light of the Sabbásavasutta to think that several were addressed to sekhas. It wouldn't be surprising if vestiges of this sort were preserved of the Buddha's discourses to his enlightened disciples.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:40 am

pulga wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Ven Bodhi, in his translation of this text, provides these comments in the footnote MLDB 1169 FN 33:
Wise attention (yoniso manasikara) is glossed as attention that is the right means (upaya), on the right track (patha). It is explained as mental advertence, consideration, or preoccupation that accords with the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. . . . the destruction of the taints is for one who knows how to arouse wise attention and who sees to it that unwise attention does not arise.

Here we have Ven Bodhi telling us what the commentary to "Appropriate/wise attention & inappropriate/unwise attention” is saying. Both the sutta text and the commentary make it quite clear that yoniso manasikara is a skillful means that leads to awakening, and from that we can see that yoniso manasikara is not coterminous with awakening.


But the commentarial position is that they are coterminous: yoniso manasikárena ca paññáya abhisamayo ahu (CDB 729). This is the traditional interpretation that Ven. Bodhi doesn't accept.
Which is likely an aberrant position, to follow your line of thinking. More correctly "the commentraial position is that they are coterminous" according to you is the case in the one instance, but certainly in others, including MN 2 it is not at all the case.

Truth here too is the truth that accords with the tilakkhana, i.e. it is ariyan: yoniso manasikara is "attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc." I suppose this is why the tradition holds that it arises jointly with paññá.
But you have actually made no argument that that phrasing is indicative of an ariya status. So far the suttas and the commentries argue against your position.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:31 am

pulga wrote: I'm still inclined in light of the Sabbásavasutta to think that several were addressed to sekhas. It wouldn't be surprising if vestiges of this sort were preserved of the Buddha's discourses to his enlightened disciples.
But the text of MN 2 and the commentary does not support your position, as we see above.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:51 am

tiltbillings wrote:

But you have actually made no argument that that phrasing is indicative of an ariya status. So far the suttas and the commentries argue against your position.


I think I did. Attending to things saccanulomika, to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. necessitates an insight beyond the ken of the puthujjana which is why it is associated with the ariyasavaka later in the Sutta.

It really isn't that complicated. In order to attend to things as they really are, so to speak, requires an understanding as to how things really are: yoniso manasikára and paññá must occur coterminously. Yoniso manasikara tainted with sakkāya-diṭṭhi is a contradiction in terms, as the Sabbásavasutta makes clear.

I'd like to add that when I regard Suttas as aberrant I by no means reject them. I simply set them aside until I get a better understanding of the Suttas as a whole: it's an exercise in hermeneutics.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:24 pm

pulga wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:

But you have actually made no argument that that phrasing is indicative of an ariya status. So far the suttas and the commentries argue against your position.


I think I did. Attending to things saccanulomika, to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. necessitates an insight beyond the ken of the puthujjana which is why it is associated with the ariyasavaka later in the Sutta.
You are making assertion, but no actual argument for your position.

It really isn't that complicated. In order to attend to things as they really are, so to speak, requires an understanding as to how things really are: yoniso manasikára and paññá must occur coterminously. Yoniso manasikara tainted with sakkāya-diṭṭhi is a contradiction in terms, as the Sabbásavasutta makes clear.
The MN 2 and it commentary suggest something other than what you claim, as has been shown.

I'd like to add that when I regard Suttas as aberrant I by no means reject them. I simply set them aside until I get a better understanding of the Suttas as a whole: it's an exercise in hermenuetics.
Setting aside, rejecting, no real difference in as much as you are not taking what they say seriously and you have no reaoned argument for your setting aside of them, other than they do not fit your predilection.

And I am still waiting for you to tell us if the bodhisatta was ariya before his awakening.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:43 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
I'd like to add that when I regard Suttas as aberrant I by no means reject them. I simply set them aside until I get a better understanding of the Suttas as a whole: it's an exercise in hermenuetics.
Setting aside, rejecting, no real difference in as much as you are not taking what they say seriously and you have no reaoned argument for your setting aside of them, other than they do not fit your predilection.


All the Sutta quotations you posted are valid, but they reflect aspects of the Dhamma as seen through the understanding of an ariyan, i.e. in light of the tilakkhana, saccanulomika.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:03 pm

pulga wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
I'd like to add that when I regard Suttas as aberrant I by no means reject them. I simply set them aside until I get a better understanding of the Suttas as a whole: it's an exercise in hermenuetics.
Setting aside, rejecting, no real difference in as much as you are not taking what they say seriously and you have no reaoned argument for your setting aside of them, other than they do not fit your predilection.


All the Sutta quotations you posted are valid, but they reflect aspects of the Dhamma as seen through the understanding of an ariyan, i.e. in light of the tilakkhana, saccanulomika.
You say stuff like this, but you make no case for what you are saying. In this I'll take Ven Analayo, Ven Bodhi and Ven Dhammanando seriously.
.


++++++++++++++++
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:11 pm

daverupa wrote:I think that idea is mistaken, pulga. I am not here to argue either - I am here to ensure that we are all quite clear about an essential condition for right view:

SN 22.122 wrote:On one occasion Ven. Sariputta & Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then Ven. Maha Kotthita, emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend, which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"

"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry."


yoniso manasikara is here clearly practiced by both puthujjana and sekha alike. (arahants too! all aboard yoniso manasikara!)


Hi Dave,

The Pali reflects a greater precision than Ven. Thanissaro's translation:

Ekaṃ samayaṃ āyasmā ca sāriputto āyasmā ca mahākoṭṭhiko [mahākoṭṭhito (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] bārāṇasiyaṃ viharanti isipatane migadāye. Atha kho āyasmā mahākoṭṭhiko sāyanhasamayaṃ paṭisallānā vuṭṭhito yenāyasmā sāriputto tenupasaṅkami…pe… etadavoca – ‘‘sīlavatāvuso, sāriputta, bhikkhunā katame dhammā yoniso manasikātabbā’’ti? ‘‘Sīlavatāvuso, koṭṭhika, bhikkhunā pañcupādānakkhandhā aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā. Katame pañca? Seyyathidaṃ – rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho, saṅkhārupādānakkhandho, viññāṇupādānakkhandho. Sīlavatāvuso, koṭṭhika, bhikkhunā ime pañcupādānakkhandhā aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā. Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ, āvuso, vijjati yaṃ sīlavā bhikkhu ime pañcupādānakkhandhe aniccato…pe… anattato yoniso manasi karonto sotāpattiphalaṃ sacchikareyyā’’ti

Sorry I can't highlight any of the texts: the message board format isn't offering it for the time being. But what is being used here is the future passive participle (yoniso manasi kátabba). It conveys not only the future, but the imperative, so when Ven. Sariputta is speaking it doesn't necessarily mean that the silavata bhikkhu at that time is even capable of yonisomanasikara. He is saying that he should (in the future) properly attend to the pañcupádánakkhandhá, because if he were to do so there is the possiblity that he might attain sotápattiphala. If the silavata bhikkhu fails to live up to Ven. Sariputta's imperative, he remains a puthujjana. Sorry that I didn't catch that earlier. 

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5932
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby daverupa » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:32 pm

pulga wrote:He is saying that he should (in the future) properly attend to the pañcupádánakkhandhá, because if he were to do so there is the possiblity that he might attain sotápattiphala.


Properly attending in the future, he might attain sotápattiphala. But he might not. So, properly attending is being done by a puthujjana, as instructed, with sotápattiphala perhaps following. But perhaps not.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

pulga
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby pulga » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:54 pm

daverupa wrote:Properly attending in the future, he might attain sotápattiphala. But he might not. So, properly attending is being done by a puthujjana, as instructed, with sotápattiphala perhaps following. But perhaps not.


No, properly attending is being done by a sotápanna who has attained the path. When Ven. Sariputta is speaking the silavata bhikkhu has attained neither path nor fruit.

But of course you're free to read it any way you like.


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine