Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by Jechbi »

I like it.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

Jechbi wrote:I like it.
Glad you do. However, this is only Part I: "The Obscured Made Clear"

Part II will come next, but I would like to first hear the voices of those who've been participating or lurking as to whether they see how clear it is that the Buddha gave us specific information about whose Wrong Views he was dealing with and what philosophies they represent. Now is the time for doubters to speak up, questions to be asked, holes to be punched in the theory thus-far, please?

:namaste:
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by vinasp »

Hi nowheat,

Are you aware that there is another sutta with a very similar ending in the Samyutta Nikaya ?
It is in part III The Book of the Aggregates, number 62 Pathways of Language.
In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation : Connected Discourses, it is on page 905.

"Bhikkhus, even Vassa and Banna of Ukkala, proponents of noncausality, of the inefficacy of action, and of nihilism, did not think that these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description should be criticized or scorned. For what reason ? Because they fear blame, attack, and condemnation".

Best wishes, Vincent.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

vinasp wrote: Are you aware that there is another sutta with a very similar ending in the Samyutta Nikaya ?
It is in part III The Book of the Aggregates, number 62 Pathways of Language.
In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation : Connected Discourses, it is on page 905.

"Bhikkhus, even Vassa and Banna of Ukkala, proponents of noncausality, of the inefficacy of action, and of nihilism, did not think that these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description should be criticized or scorned. For what reason ? Because they fear blame, attack, and condemnation".
I haven't gotten that far through the SN, so thanks for the specific reference. I do have the book at hand but don't have a Pali version of this sutta.

Do you find this relevant to the current discussion? If so, in what way?

:namaste:
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by vinasp »

Hi nowheat,

The samyutta passage is translated differently by F.L. Woodward in the PTS Kindred Sayings III.

"Moreover, the folk of Ukkali, preachers in the retreat, deniers of the cause, deniers of the deed, deniers of reality ..."

Woodward is reading "vassa" as the rains retreat, and "banna" as preacher. So there may be some doubt over the correct translation. However, this only affects the question of the named teachers and their number, which is not, I think, central to your argument. There are three doctrines mentioned in all cases, so far. (ahetuvadins, akiriyavadins and natthikavadins).

Best wishes, Vincent.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

vinasp wrote: The samyutta passage is translated differently by F.L. Woodward in the PTS Kindred Sayings III.

"Moreover, the folk of Ukkali, preachers in the retreat, deniers of the cause, deniers of the deed, deniers of reality ..."

Woodward is reading "vassa" as the rains retreat, and "banna" as preacher. So there may be some doubt over the correct translation. However, this only affects the question of the named teachers and their number, which is not, I think, central to your argument. There are three doctrines mentioned in all cases, so far. (ahetuvadins, akiriyavadins and natthikavadins).
Yes, thanks, VIncent. I would still like to have this one in Pali so I can see if the phrasing is the same in both. :namaste:
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by vinasp »

Hi nowheat,

Yepi te bhikkhave, ahesuṃ ukkalā vassabhaññā1 ahetuvādā akiriyavādā natthivādā, tepi mahācattārīsakaṃ dhammapariyāyaṃ na garahitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ2 maññiṃsu.3 Taṃ kissa hetu: nindābyārosaupārambhabhayāti.

The above is the Pali of the MN 117 ending, from http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Based on the Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series. Below is the ending of the Samyutta version.

Yepi te bhikkhave, ahesuṃ ukkalā vassabhaññā, ahetukavādā akiriyavādā natthikavādā, tepime tayo niruttipathe adhivacanapathe paññattipathe na garahitabbaṃ na paṭikkositabbaṃ maññiṃsu. Taṃ kissa hetu: nindākhyārosaupāramhabhayā'ti.

The numbers 1,2 and 3 in the first refer to notes which may be about variations in different versions, I am not sure.

Best wishes, Vincent.
Last edited by vinasp on Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

vinasp wrote: Yepi te bhikkhave, ahesuṃ ukkalā vassabhaññā1 ahetuvādā akiriyavādā natthivādā, tepi mahācattārīsakaṃ dhammapariyāyaṃ na garahitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ2 maññiṃsu.3 Taṃ kissa hetu: nindābyārosaupārambhabhayāti.

This is the Pali of MN 117 from http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will look for the other text and add it ...
Oh I have MN 117 in Pali, thanks Vincent. I meant the SN sutta that ends with the same three schools of thought?
:namaste:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

So then, do we all agree that:

(1) is about denying the efficacy Brahmin rituals ("There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed")
(2) is about denying the efficacy of karma ("There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.") and
(3) is about denying the validity of a whole bunch of ideas then current in the Buddha's world, that is, the nihilism of the day? ("There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.")

I guess I'll give this thread till tomorrow morning for further debate on these points, before going on.

:namaste:
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by vinasp »

Hi nowheat,

I am not convinced by your arguments so far, but the reasons are complex and difficult to explain. However, I am interested to see how you develop your ideas further. It may turn out that I agree with your conclusion even though I do not agree with your reasons. Here are some of my thoughts :

In DN 23 we find this view attributed to Prince Payasi :

"There is no other world, there are no spontaneously born beings, there is no fruit or result of good or evil deeds".

Now, Payasi was a typical materialist and these are just the views one would expect. No next world - no post mortem existence. No devas. No result of deeds. I think that this is the original and refers to a particular person. My guess would be that this was expanded by adding more views to give a general list of wrong views. This then caused a problem because the views are not compatible. The view "this world does not exist" is of a completely different type to the view "the next world does not exist". No ordinary person would think "this world does not exist" it is a philosophers view. It needs to be understood correctly. Those philosophers who said "the world exists" meant that the cosmos was eternal, those who said "the world does not exist" meant that the cosmos was not eternal. The non-existence view is not a nihilist view, it does not deny the reality of the things we see.

On the analysis of MN 117.

I think the best method would be to break down the expanded list of views and identify each one correctly. I think that your division into three is an error, although coincidentally (1) and (2) fit the first and second doctrines. In most good translations (and in the romanised Pali) all the views are included in one complete sentence.

It may also be the case that right view for puthujjanas was worked out first, and then the opposite set of views naturally became wrong view, which led to logical contradictions. So a Buddhist lay follower is supposed to believe that
"this world exists" what does that mean ? Just some thoughts.

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by pink_trike »

vinasp wrote: It may also be the case that right view for puthujjanas was worked out first, and then the opposite set of views naturally became wrong view, which led to logical contradictions.
.
Yes.

It should be considered that nearly the whole of the Dharma teachings are now available to nearly everyone, and that nearly everyone now thinks that they are qualified to determine their meaning...as if words and phrases on paper or electronic screens have only one concrete correct meaning within the Dharma. This isn't how the Dharma was originally taught, and even now it isn't how thoroughly trained traditional Dharma teachers teach it. The Dharma was originally taught as a path with the implicit meaning of one carefully considered step at a time, each step expediently and skillfully revealed to the student according to the student's level of temperament, awareness and ability to understand. Teachings that could lead to confusion or nihilism in unprepared or incapable students were withheld, and paradoxical realizations were reserved for later on the path. In our "all you can eat" time the Dharma teachings are widely regarded as a pig regards the trough...everyone is free to snout through them looking for morsels that feed their unique hungers regardless of their temperament, awareness, ability, or previous training or lack thereof. The Dharma path is full of paradoxical twists and turns that teachers skillfully employ in their wisdom. What is taught as the meaning of something at one stage of the path can ultimately come to mean it's seeming opposite at higher elevations (or inner core) of the path, without a trace of inconsistency. Many people who consider themselves "Buddhists" are wading in waters over their heads in the absence of a teacher that they are confident will reveal the Dharma to them in a skillful way.
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.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

pink_trike wrote: In our "all you can eat" time the Dharma teachings are widely regarded as a pig regards the trough...everyone is free to snout through them looking for morsels that feed their unique hungers regardless of their temperament, awareness, ability, or previous training or lack thereof.
Thank you for the vivid and illuminating metaphor there, pink_trike. I'm sure your view represents the majority of what Buddhists worldwide believe to be the the case, that the only way to achieve deep and accurate understanding is to wait for the teacher to give you insight (and you didn't say it, but I'm sure you believe as I do, “and while waiting, practice, practice, practice”). In the balance of all things, both forces, for conservation and for change, are equally necessary, and I therefore have a great deal of respect for your conservative view of the dhamma and sangha, just as I do of the conservative view in politics and in environmental science. As regards the dhamma, however, my efforts are on the side of change. Still, I am glad you stepped forward and stated the conservative view. Now that that is out of the way, we can return to focusing on applying our intelligence and limited understanding to the sutta at hand.

:namaste:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

vinasp wrote: I am not convinced by your arguments so far,
Are you saying that you think the list of three philosophers at the end has nothing to do with the sutta?
In DN 23 we find this view attributed to Prince Payasi :

"There is no other world, there are no spontaneously born beings, there is no fruit or result of good or evil deeds".

Now, Payasi was a typical materialist and these are just the views one would expect. No next world - no post mortem existence. No devas. No result of deeds. I think that this is the original and refers to a particular person. My guess would be that this was expanded by adding more views to give a general list of wrong views. This then caused a problem because the views are not compatible. The view "this world does not exist" is of a completely different type to the view "the next world does not exist". No ordinary person would think "this world does not exist" it is a philosophers view. It needs to be understood correctly. Those philosophers who said "the world exists" meant that the cosmos was eternal, those who said "the world does not exist" meant that the cosmos was not eternal. The non-existence view is not a nihilist view, it does not deny the reality of the things we see.
I am not sure if you're saying that the phrase you quoted first in this block can only belong to one type of philosopher and you attribute it to the materialist school so it therefore cannot belong to what nihilists believe? Or if you're saying something else here. Please clarify?
On the analysis of MN 117.

I think the best method would be to break down the expanded list of views and identify each one correctly. I think that your division into three is an error, although coincidentally (1) and (2) fit the first and second doctrines. In most good translations (and in the romanised Pali) all the views are included in one complete sentence.
I gather that punctuation was a lot looser in those days of Pali-writing.

Are you then theorizing that in this sutta “Wrong View” represents the views of more than three different philosophies? I would welcome your best guess at such a list.
It may also be the case that right view for puthujjanas was worked out first, and then the opposite set of views naturally became wrong view, which led to logical contradictions. So a Buddhist lay follower is supposed to believe that "this world exists" what does that mean ? Just some thoughts.
“puthujjanas” being “just regular folk” – those still suffering from ignorance of the Buddha's teachings?

Are you saying with your “logical contradictions” that the Buddha offered us a teaching here in MN 117 that contained such logical contradictions? When you say “was worked out first, and then the opposite set of views naturally became wrong view” whom do you conceive of as doing the “working out” and coming up with an opposite that was illogical?

:namaste:
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by pink_trike »

nowheat wrote:
pink_trike wrote: In our "all you can eat" time the Dharma teachings are widely regarded as a pig regards the trough...everyone is free to snout through them looking for morsels that feed their unique hungers regardless of their temperament, awareness, ability, or previous training or lack thereof.
Thank you for the vivid and illuminating metaphor there, pink_trike. I'm sure your view represents the majority of what Buddhists worldwide believe to be the the case, that the only way to achieve deep and accurate understanding is to wait for the teacher to give you insight (and you didn't say it, but I'm sure you believe as I do, “and while waiting, practice, practice, practice”). In the balance of all things, both forces, for conservation and for change, are equally necessary, and I therefore have a great deal of respect for your conservative view of the dhamma and sangha, just as I do of the conservative view in politics and in environmental science. As regards the dhamma, however, my efforts are on the side of change. Still, I am glad you stepped forward and stated the conservative view. Now that that is out of the way, we can return to focusing on applying our intelligence and limited understanding to the sutta at hand.

:namaste:
Many here are likely amused to read that you think I have a conservative view of the Dharma and Sangha. :jumping: Heh...I emphatically don't - although a lot of my view is influenced by years of conservative training, it is pronouncedly inconsistent with many of Buddhism's traditional views. I prefer the Dharma stripped of the institution and the mythology that grew on it, but I'm conservative about practice and traditional teaching methodology while optimistic that traditional teaching methodology can be adapted to the information age at the point that traditional Buddhist teachers welcome and learn how to use a wide array of online teaching tools and by doing so stake their position as teachers in cyber where they are notably absent.

My post was simply meant to point at how a phrase or segment of a teaching can be nuanced differently at different stages on the path and that the context of the time/place/audience needs to figure in our attempts to understand what any particular phrase or teachings originally meant to convey. Context is often not considered, which imo is relevant to the discussion taking place in this thread.
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.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

pink_trike wrote: My post was simply meant to point at how a phrase or segment of a teaching can be nuanced differently at different stages on the path and that the context of the time/place/audience needs to figure in our attempts to understand what any particular phrase or teachings originally meant to convey. Context is often not considered, which imo is relevant to the discussion taking place in this thread.
Ah. Sorry. I didn't get that from your “pig at the trough” metaphor at all.

So to clarify, you're saying part of the context we should be looking for is to do with who the Buddha was offering his teaching to at the time? I agree with that, though in this case we just have the information that he is addressing monks (in general, none specifically) and that it was late enough in his teaching career that Anathapindika's Park had been established in the area of Savatthi.

:namaste:
Post Reply