Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

I still have a question that does not need to be tied to this sutta, which is "Does concentration have anything to do with obtaining right view? If so, how so?" Think of this is a "real world" question. In your experience, how does the practice of meditation relate to "right view"?
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

mikenz66 wrote:I didn't say it was a corrupt sutta
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. "Corrupt" is my word, after listening to the talk I mentioned, and reading about it on various sites. Also, please don't be alarmed by my use of the word. I don't mean "corrupt" like Mafia infiltration "corrupt" I mean it as in "made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text" (from Dictionary.com).
I think that the interesting thing is that super-mundane right view here is really not having a "view":
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Interesting indeed. Which part of that quote do you see as meaning that super-mundane right view is not having a view?

:namaste:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi NoWheat,
nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I didn't say it was a corrupt sutta
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. "Corrupt" is my word, after listening to the talk I mentioned, and reading about it on various sites. Also, please don't be alarmed by my use of the word. I don't mean "corrupt" like Mafia infiltration "corrupt" I mean it as in "made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text" (from Dictionary.com).
That's what I understood "corrupt" to mean in this context.

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi NoWheat,
nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: I think that the interesting thing is that super-mundane right view here is really not having a "view":
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Interesting indeed. Which part of that quote do you see as meaning that super-mundane right view is not having a view?
Do you see any "views" expressed there? It just says that if you have supermundane right view you have discernment, analysis of qualities, and so on. As opposed to the mundane right view, which prescribes particular "views".

This passage reminds me of descriptions of Ajahn Chah by his students (for example, Ajahn Tiradhammo, who I've met a few times). Ajahn T. said that for a while he tried to figure out what Ajahn Chah's opinions were, and he came to the conclusion that Ajahn Chah didn't really have any opinions, one could just observe wisdom operating, according to the particular situation. That's the sort of message I read into the above quote.

See also:
MN 72 Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on Fire
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by mikenz66 »

Hello again NoWheat,
nowheat wrote:I still have a question that does not need to be tied to this sutta, which is "Does concentration have anything to do with obtaining right view? If so, how so?" Think of this is a "real world" question. In your experience, how does the practice of meditation relate to "right view"?
Looking at the Sutta again, I don't really see a problem with it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha starts out with:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you noble right concentration with its supports and requisite conditions. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
Then describes the path in great detail, emphasising right view at each step and showing how it, and the other factors build up to right concentration:
"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished...
Unfortunately, the use of ellipses tends to de-emphasise the punch line so let's put the words back:
... The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong concentration as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right concentration as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
Having done that, he finishes off by explaining that noble right concentration isn't an end in itself, but a means to right knowledge and release:
In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
Metta
Mike
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

mikenz66 wrote:
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Do you see any "views" expressed there? It just says that if you have supermundane right view you have discernment, analysis of qualities, and so on. As opposed to the mundane right view, which prescribes particular "views".
Interesting reading, that by its absence we know it. I would agree with that.

: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 »

mikenz66 wrote: Looking at the Sutta again, I don't really see a problem with it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha starts out with:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you noble right concentration with its supports and requisite conditions. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
Then describes the path in great detail, emphasising right view at each step and showing how it, and the other factors build up to right concentration:
"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished...
Unfortunately, the use of ellipses tends to de-emphasise the punch line so let's put the words back:
... The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong concentration as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right concentration as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
Having done that, he finishes off by explaining that noble right concentration isn't an end in itself, but a means to right knowledge and release:
In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
Hmmm. It doesn't seem like a “punch line” to me when right concentration is followed by right knowledge and right release (you don't show that in your quote, but it is there in the sutta), and the final portion doesn't mention right concentration, but I agree that right concentration is still being talked about here, that it's being (under-)stated that right concentration is necessary to this whole process.

: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 everyone,

But the enlightened individual "knows and sees things as they really are" does this not imply having views ?

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 »

At BlackBird's request, the following is a summary "so far"... sorry for its length.

: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 »

Part I: The Premise

MN 117 “The Great Forty” is a sutta that states it is about concentration and its supports and requisite conditions; it starts with right view and goes on to resolve, speech, action, and livelihood, and in each of these describes right view as the forerunner; it again puts an emphasis on right view when it includes it in a special mix at the end of each section, where it says that the quality it focuses on is at the center of a circle of right view, effort and mindfulness; it ends by explaining the title “The Great Forty” as a score in a sort of point system in debating, and closes with mention of some teachers and three views they held that have now been well refuted, and the usual delight of the monks. In each section there are actually three aspects of the qualities discussed: Wrong, Right with Taints, and Supramundane.

My premise is that in the initial section on Views, which is clearly the most heavily emphasized in the sutta, the views listed in their negative and positives in “Wrong View” and “Right View with Taints” have been misinterpreted in the past. The popular understanding these days is that the list in “Right View with Taints” is the mundane path that the Buddha taught, and that all those items listed are things we who are new to the path should believe. What I see in the list from “Wrong View” is three separate negative views, and in the “Right View with Taints” is a minimum of three views (with the last actually encapsulating a larger list).

The list of negative/positive as drawn from the Wisdom Publications edition of the Majjhima Nikaya is:

(1) (a) There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed / (b) There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed

(2) (a) [There is] no fruit or result of good and bad actions / (b) there is fruit and result of good and bad actions

(3) (a) [There is] no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. / (b) there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world god and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.

The problem with these phrases is, of course, that they are not using what we think of as “plain English” but are using the idioms of the day, and much of the context for these lines has been lost along the way, so we need to remember that the Buddha was not talking in our language to our culture and times, but in his language (and this is at minimum a translation of a translation) and was shortcutting in just the way we'd say “24/7” these days and know what that meant, but it might be incomprehensible 2,500 years from now when the 7-day week was no longer in effect, and clocks kept time that matched the rotation of Mars.

Listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi's talk, he translates (1)(a) as stated above, then hesitates and changes “sacrificed” to “no practice of charity” which is a stretch. If the Buddha is using phrasing common in his day, the context for giving could be gifts to ascetics as well as for Brahmins who perform rituals; but what is offered is understood to be what is done in a ritual – offerings of ghee and soma, for example; sacrifice is what is done in rituals with (most notoriously) animals. When regular folk of the day heard “What is given, offered, sacrificed” they will think of Brahmins, they would not equate “sacrifice” with “acts of charity” especially since the word “sacrificed” used here in the Pali is “hutam”, is a form of the word “huta” a past participle of “juhati” which has the primary meaning of “to pour (into the fire), to sacrifice, offer”. (Using Rhys Davids and Stede's Pali English Dictionary aka “PED” as the source here.)

Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation of (1) “There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed” is the one that would be known to all listeners in the Buddha's day, which is not a denial that sacrificing through acts of charity to the monks of the sangha has merit, but a denial of the Brahmin's worldview, that their rituals and sacrifices had an effect, and that giving gifts to Brahmins so that they will perform rituals for you will be to your benefit. This was a common view in the day.

Section (2) does seem clearly to be about karma, and is understood that way.

Section (3) is filled with equally vague (to us) references that would have been quite clear in the Buddha's day, each a specific reference. Apparently the first phrase “There is no this world” is still problematic in translation. Because to us the language is vague (though it will have been specific to the Buddha's listeners) it is easy to bend these phrases to suit our particular understanding of what we think the Buddha is saying. To Bhikkhu Bodhi these are references to rebirth (“this world and the next”), duty to parents (“mother, father”), devas and gods (“beings spontaneously reborn”), and enlightened ascetics and Brahmins (“who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world”). Whereas I see quite clear references to nihilistic views denying a wide variety of doctrines, including the Brahmin's view of “this world and the next” (at this point in time the Brahmin view of life after death was pretty simple); denial of the point of ancestor worship (which ran throughout society, concurrently with both Brahmin views and heretical views) in “mother, father”; I haven't got a context yet for “spontaneously reborn beings” but that may be because I haven't studied the folk religions as much as I've concentrated on Brahminism and the heretical views – there were lots of native spirits in trees, rivers, rocks and snakes this could reference; and finally a denial that anyone travels in this life to other worlds and returns from them to teach about them in “who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world”.

Again the simplest explanation of what's being said is that the Buddha is using phrases common in his time to short-hand a wide variety of doctrines common in his time.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

PART II: The Evidence

I have one piece of supporting evidence from within the sutta itself, which is that at the very end, the three doctrines that the Buddha says he refutes with this talk are:

(A) non-causality
(B) non-doing
(C ) nihilism

which match up to the views in (1), (2), and (3) above as follows:

(A) causality is the Brahmin's view of the cosmos, based on correspondence (“As above, so below; as below, so above”) the causality being that what's done in ritual has an effect on the world above and so below. (See references at the end of this post.) So “non-causality” is a denial of the Brahmin's view, and this matches perfectly with “Nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed” as a catch-phrase.

(B) non-doing: I expect you're aware that the Buddha took the world “kamma” which meant “action” and shifted it over to mean “intention”. The doctrine being denied here is “kamma as action” (not the Buddha's kamma) – the doctrine of non-doing, then, is a denial that action had any effect on life after death. The Vedic philosopher Yajnavalkya, whose parts in the Upanisads the Buddha references, was quite famous for stating that the atman was not touched by the actions of the body-mind complex, so that is one well-cited example of a doctrine of non-doing that the Buddha was familiar with because it was being discussed in his day.

(C ) nihilism: what is that long list of “no this, no that” but an excellent example of the nihilist's view of things, denying that everyone else's worldview is correct because none of that stuff is true at all.

'Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World's Beliefs' by Ninian Smart (1999) wrote: It may be noted that sacrifice typically involves the notion of transformation, for instance the change of status of the animal or other offering to become something sacred, with the domain of the god, and its transfer to another sphere, for instance through the agency of Fire or Agni.

The notion of transformation serves as the basis of one of the two major theories of causation in Indian philosophy.
'Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual, and Religion' by Brian K Smith (1998) wrote: The doctrine of counterparts makes possible not only ritual efficacy – the manipulation of ritual counterparts in order to influence cosmic prototypes – but also ritual efficiency.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

PART III: The Opposition and My Counter-Arguments

(1) There are not three negative views represented here, it's all one view (nihilism, or materialism).
(2) That Wrong View here is a lack of Mundane Right View; that Mundane Right view represents the common sense of values; that the supramundane view drops out all language about such values; that it's an overview of progress away from Wrong Views
(3) That it's just coincidental that the three philosophies at the end can be matched in substance and order to the doctrines that are being denied at the start of the sutta, after all we see the same set at the end of other suttas.
(4) That the whole Mundane Right View is about us being owners of our own kamma.
(5) That the negative views are not nihilists or materialists but are all sceptics.
(6) That the Buddha was twisting common terms to his own use in these descriptions, something he was famous for.
(7) That either MN 117 has had its meaning lost or has in it secret teachings about the mundane and supramundane paths.


(1) Could be but the three negative philosophies listed at the end so neatly match the order and structure of the Wrong Views at the beginning that it seems more likely that nihilism is just one part.
(2) Actually I agree with this overview; it's in the details that I disagree.
(3) Seems a pretty large co-incidence to me that they match so well and the order is the same, too. I don't say that suttas never borrow from each other; they certainly do. What I do say is that a good way to discover which one is the “original” that the block of text was drawn from is to notice if elsewhere in the sutta there are portions that match it. When this block is found elsewhere with no great relevance to the sutta, it's probably been stuck in there (since these were orally transmitted for centuries, this undoubtedly happened); when it has relevance, it's far more likely to be original material that has been there all along.
(4) The whole of my reading goes against this* so I'm no able to fit my response in here... you need to read at least this whole summary! * except in the sense that we are all owners of our intentions (the Buddha's spin on kamma) which I would agree is part of the point of the sutta.
(5) Lumping so many different voices under “sceptic” is not helpful in understanding the rich and complex variety of points of view that abounded in the Buddha's day. Sure you can see all the negative views as skeptics – everyone is skeptical about the opponent's viewpoint – but calling them all “skeptics” doesn't help us sort anything out at all.
(6) The Buddha certainly did do that but he was clear about doing it when he was doing it. If that was what he was doing here we would need some evidence within the sutta for it, or ample evidence that when he used certain phrases he almost always meant something other than what he was saying. Otherwise, we should be quite careful about saying that by “x” he meant “y” – without good evidence Everything he said becomes meaningless if we can redefine them at will. This is not to say that every instance of the Buddha bending meaning is perfectly clear to us now, I know we have misinterpreted some of his clever turns, taking them literally – I'm just saying that when we say he is bending meanings, we need to show good evidence for it.
(7) That its meaning has been lost is the point of my argument; lost does not mean “is not recoverable” though. I do not find the idea of secret teachings originating with the Buddha at all credible – I believe the suttas when they say he said he taught with an open hand – it is consistent with his whole philosophy. As to secret teachings having been slipped into the suttas from some other source than the Buddha, I have never been much for conspiracy theories; it is far more likely that the normal course of human confusion and conflicting understandings, as well as attempts to preserve through oral traditions and laborious copying, and translations over time, have caused things to be mixed up, inserted, dropped, and just generally muddied to the point where one could see the outlines of a conspiracy (aka “secret teaching”) if one is so inclined. I am not.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote: But the enlightened individual "knows and sees things as they really are" does this not imply having views ?
No, that's what I was trying to explain.

Evidently I was not clear enough. I tried to give the Ajahn Chah version and the Vacchagotta example. Here is another Sutta:
MN 58 Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Lord, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or does the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot?"

"In that case, prince, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: are you skilled in the parts of a chariot?"

"Yes, lord. I am skilled in the parts of a chariot."

"And what do you think: When people come & ask you, 'What is the name of this part of the chariot?' does this line of reasoning appear to your awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or do you come up with the answer on the spot?"

"Lord, I am renowned for being skilled in the parts of a chariot. All the parts of a chariot are well-known to me. I come up with the answer on the spot."

"In the same way, prince, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, he comes up with the answer on the spot. Why is that? Because the property of the Dhamma is thoroughly penetrated by the Tathagata. From his thorough penetration of the property of the Dhamma, he comes up with the answer on the spot." [*]

Footnote [*] This statement is apparently related to the more abstract statement in AN 4.24, (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html) that what the Tathagata knows is not "established" in him. In other words, he does not define himself or the awakened mind in terms of knowledge or views, even concerning the Dhamma, although the knowledge that led to his awakening is fully available for him to draw on at any time.
Metta
Mike
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Post by nowheat »

PART IV: What's Concentration Got To Do With It?

The sutta says it's about concentration and then barely mentions it again. The whole sutta is a study in what the requisites and supports for concentration are. (Oh, I forgot to mention an opposing view as it relates to this: that the sutta has nothing to do with concentration, that the opening is just tacked on there as it is so similar to other openings on suttas that are actually about concentration. Unlikely, as in the middle sections the Buddha clicks into place all the other parts of the 8-fold path and even the two extra factors for arahants (wisdom and liberation). It would be very odd for him to leave out concentration from these considerations of the factors if it were just a generalized sutta – he is talking about concentration through the other factors, which is why he isn't mentioning concentration in the factors for Right View, Intention, Speech, Action, and Livelihood.)

When I asked earlier what Right View had to do with Concentration, I felt sure that anyone who'd practiced the Buddha's path for even a little while would testify that the relationship between the two goes two ways:

(1) Your meditation isn't going to do you a whole lot of good if you don't have Right View. You can sit and meditate on how good sex is all you want and it's not going to get you liberated. So Right View is clearly a support and requisite for Right Concentration.

(2) You get a much more accurate view the more you practice concentration. Meditation is about seeing directly, and seeing for yourself. So Right Concentration is a requisite and support for Right View.

The two run around each other in just the same way that Right View, Right Effort, and Right Mindfulness run a circle around whatever factor we're discussing to support them (as the Buddha mentions in this very sutta).

How does the fact that this sutta is actually about concentration relate to an altered reading of MN 117? Hey, I've spent half my day writing this summary; that's going to have to wait till I've got some work done.

In the meantime, comments about the relationship between concentration and right view are most welcome; new arguments for or against the reading so far that add substance to the conversation are also welcome.

: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: But the enlightened individual "knows and sees things as they really are" does this not imply having views ?
Another way to put it is this: Is the Buddha's dhamma "a view"?

:namaste:
Post Reply