Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:34 pm

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: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:35 pm

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.
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:36 pm

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
"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/an/an04/an04.024.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
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:39 pm

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: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:41 pm

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:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:47 pm

Hi nowheat,
nowheat wrote: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).

Of course. And point (1) is certainly implied in the Sutta.
One wonders if the Buddha, or the reciters, got a little tired at about the point of livelihood and left out some passages about how right this and right that run and circle around right this and that and the other, including concentration...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby BlackBird » Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:40 pm

Thank you for writing out that summary Nowheat. Certainly was a worthwhile read.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:39 pm

PART IV: What's Concentration Got To Do With It? (Part Two)

As others have mentioned, the supramundane Right View as listed in this sutta is (ironically) viewless, that is, (1) there's nothing mentioned about what views one holds when it is described and (2) it mentions only knowledge and wisdom. What does a viewless view consist of, then? It seems clear it consists of knowledge and wisdom.

Is having no views just a wishy-washy state in which you say, "I don't know?" No, that's the skeptic's view, the one Sanjaya held, that the Buddha made fun of (perhaps a bit unjustly, but that's a discussion for another thread). This viewless view isn't "I give up" and it's not a refusal to even try to consider the information coming in, it's not avoidance of issues and it's certainly not ignorance. This supramundane "view" is made up of knowledge and wisdom, says this sutta. How do we get such knowledge and wisdom? By studying what everyone else tells us? I suppose it helps to hear the arguments of others, but it seems clear to me that the Buddha has always taught that simply accepting the teachings of others without evidence is not the way. He taught that you must see for yourself.

And that, of course, is where Right Concentration comes in, because it's only through serious investigation that one can ever reach that viewless view. I believe this is why he says, in this sutta, that Right View is foremost, and why he emphasizes it in every section of the sutta:
Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? One understands wrong intention as wrong intention and right intention as right intention: this is one's right view....
...One understands wrong speech as wrong speech and right speech as right speech: this is one's right view...
...One understands wrong action as wrong action and right action as right action: this is one's right view...
...One understands wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood and right livelihood as right livelihood: this is one's right view...


All of these right views may be seen as things we gain through intellectual understanding, but it seems to me that there's a difference between the knowledge made up of information – the things we have learned from the word of others – and knowledge made up of experience – which is the true knowledge. Surely only the latter kind of knowledge brings one to liberation from suffering? And as Mike pointed out, in the final substantial section of this sutta, there is a rendition of the arising of one factor after another, in the usual order, ending in “right concentration” leading to the arising of “right knowledge” followed by “right deliverance”.

I would argue that one very subtle thing this sutta is saying by including the less usual factors of the higher path, wisdom and liberation, following concentration (which is the focus of the sutta) is that direct knowledge is key to Right View, and it is obtained through concentration.

Does anyone else see this in this sutta? Or am I misreading it?

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:18 pm

Hi nowheat,
nowheat wrote:I would argue that one very subtle thing this sutta is saying by including the less usual factors of the higher path, wisdom and liberation, following concentration (which is the focus of the sutta) is that direct knowledge is key to Right View, and it is obtained through concentration.

Just a comment about the "extra factors". I've been reading MN118, Anapanasati Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html lately, and note that it talks about, in Ven Thanissaro's translation "clear knowing & release". The Nanamoli/Bodhi translation is "true knowledge and deliverance". Perhaps one of our Pali scholars could elucidate the similarity/difference between these terms in MN118 and the "right knowledge, right release" (Thanissaro) "right knowledge, right deliverance" (Nanamoli/Bodhi) in MN117.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:33 pm

PART V: Basis for the Conclusion

Since I did an extended summary of everything a few posts back (end of page 5, top of page 6) I'm going to give only my briefest summary here:

* that MN 117 The Great Forty has been read without considering the context, which is that it was a rebuttal of three negative doctrines as listed at the end of the sutta
* that these three negative doctrines are described with catch-phrases well known in the Buddha's time in “Wrong View” at the beginning of the sutta
* that these are (1) non-causality which equates to the Brahminical view of the world in which offerings, gifts and sacrifices do cause certain effects in the world through correspondence, (2) non-action which equates to a denial of kamma, and (3) nihilism which equates to a denial of just about every belief system
* that these three negative views are reflected in their positive versions in “Right View, with Effluents”
* that the three kinds of views: Wrong View, Right View with Effluents, and Supramundane Right View represent an arc moving away from immoral views to the supramundane “view” that is the most moral
* and finally that since this is a sutta about concentration in which “Right View is Foremost” the sutta is saying both that Right View is needed for productive practice of concentration, and that direct insight through concentration is needed for Right View – as well as to win the extra factors of the path listed here – right knowledge and release.

We haven't talked a lot about the term “effluents” and that is the last piece I need to include here. Let me quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi's audio talk on MN 117 (Part 1, to be found here: http://www.bodhimonastery.net/courses/MN/MN_course.html)

Now we come to right view. This is where it becomes more interesting. We see this distinction, “Right view, I say, is two-fold. There is right view that is affected by taints...” Here the Pali expression is simpler, “sasava” that is literally, “with the asavas”, with the (I don't like “taints”) “with the influxes” or “corruptions”. “Partaking of merit,” now we have an expression a little obscure, the translation is “ripening in the acquisitions”: “upadhivepakkà”. What is meant here by “the acquisitions”, that is the word “upadhi”, which has several shades of meaning, but the relevant meaning here would be “the five aggregates that constitute personal existence”. And so meritorious right view, ripens in the acquisitions, in that it leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future, that is it's still, you could call it “right view which is still bound up with samsaric existence”. It's still a mundane right view. It's an important type of right view for leading a righteous life within the world. It's the right view that will help one to steer clear of unwholesome courses of action, and to undertake wholesome courses of action.

In general, I agree with the flavor of what is said above, but I disagree on one fine point.

The definitions of the word “with effluents” (Access To Insight's translation) and “with taints” (Wisdom Pubs translation) can mean “with the influxes” or “corruptions” and the rather obscure part about “ripening in the acquisitions” means this belief continues to generate samsaric existence, or in other words, keeps us generating those five aggregates which are self-views. This is considered, in the description above, to be “an important type of right view for leading a righteous life within the world”.

When seen as an arc, from “wrong view” – one that does others harm and whose representatives demonstrate by their actions amorality – through “right view with taints” in which your behavior is improved over “wrong view” but is still generating a self-centered view – to the supramundane right view which is the most moral, yes, I can see that it's an important view for leading a *more* righteous life within the world, but not *The* Righteous Life.

It is clear to me that the Buddha's path, the one he is aiming to teach all of us, is the Supramundane view, the one that is NOT “tainted”, “corrupted” “with influxes” or “ripening in acquisitions” that “leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future” – how could a path, so described, possibly be the one he wants us to follow? Sure, it's better than the Wrong View, and if you're in Wrong View, it's something to aim for, a first step, but it surely is not the path the Buddha teaches. Why would he teach us to practice something that “leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future”?
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:24 am

Hi nowheat,
nowheat wrote:Why would he teach us to practice something that “leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future”?

I don't see the problem. You seem to be reading a contradiction where there isn't one. As I understand it, acquiring that "mundane" right view is not the "goal", it's a precursor to acquiring the liberating right view. In the Suttas a few students jump straight to liberation. For others it is not that simple and they spend years getting there.

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:18 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
nowheat wrote:Why would he teach us to practice something that “leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future”?

I don't see the problem. You seem to be reading a contradiction where there isn't one. As I understand it, acquiring that "mundane" right view is not the "goal", it's a precursor to acquiring the liberating right view. In the Suttas a few students jump straight to liberation. For others it is not that simple and they spend years getting there.

Whereas to me it seems a little like a coach recruiting some talented kid who has been using his skills to commit crimes, bringing him in off the street, and teaching him to play football in ways that will cause him to hurt himself till he gets good enough at it to learn "real" football. It seems far more logical to go straight for teaching the stuff that's not harmful and work on those skills.

:namaste:

And then of course, there's the observation that:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:29 pm

PART VI: Conclusion

Since the Mundane Right View (with effluents, taints, corruptions, that results in acquisitions -- causing one to keep generating the five aggregates that bind you to the self-view) by this reading, include the Brahminical view of the cosmos that ritual and sacrifice are effective, this cannot be part of the Buddha's actual path. He is saying here that these are mundane (worldly) views in the sense that they are common amongst the people of his day; he is showing tolerance for such views because they are morally far superior to the wrong views. He is *not* saying that you have to practice these views to get to his path, though one supposes in his day most people did start from one of them prior to coming to him as a teacher. He is saying that you have to get past these views, and get to his viewless view, to get to liberation. Mundane Right View, therefore, is not the Buddha's path. There is only one path in this sutta that the Buddha teaches, and that is the supramundane path.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby vinasp » Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:25 pm

Hi nowheat,

What are the asava's ?

Enlightenment is the elimination of many things which are always present in an unenlightened mind. The earliest description of these things is "asava's".These things are divided into three groups :

1. kama-asava - everything connected with sense pleasures - feelings, cravings and clinging.

2. bhava-asava - everything connected with existence/ becoming - feelings, cravings and clinging.

3. avijja-asava - a multitude of wrong views and mis-conceptions.

The elimination of these three asava's is enlightenment, nothing else is required. The arahant is said to be "free of asava's" or to have "destroyed the asava's". In some passages describing enlightenment these three asava's are explicitly mentioned by name. They can be eliminated *only* by "seeing" as explained in MN 2 .

Note : in fact there are four asava's but this is an "advanced level" topic.

Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:11 pm

Hi NoWheat,
nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Whereas to me it seems a little like a coach recruiting some talented kid who has been using his skills to commit crimes, bringing him in off the street, and teaching him to play football in ways that will cause him to hurt himself till he gets good enough at it to learn "real" football. It seems far more logical to go straight for teaching the stuff that's not harmful and work on those skills.

I take the mundane part of the path to be minimising harm.

If you have discovered a method of going straight to liberation, without doing the mundane work, please share it with us... It would save us a lot of trouble.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:45 am

mikenz66 wrote:If you have discovered a method of going straight to liberation, without doing the mundane work, please share it with us... It would save us a lot of trouble.

Sure, Mike, no problem: Simply do as MN 117 suggests here and give up clinging to views that performing rituals and sacrifice is helpful; that kamma and merit are not just views but The System; let go of the concept of the self as containing the whole world and that knowing this will allow you to live forever in the world beyond; give up believing that ancestor worship is a good use of your time; let go of the view that there are beings that are spontaneously reborn; cease believing that there are teachers out there who travel to the other worlds and return to teach about them. In fact, let go of all views: that is clearly what this sutta says is Right View. Understand suffering, its cause, cessation, and the path that leads to the end of suffering -- while not clinging to unverifiable views. Understand anicca, dukkha, anatta; the dependent nature of all things, including the way we construct a self in our ignorance. It's not some weird alternate path -- it's what the Buddha teaches is the way to liberation. Nothing says it's instantaneous or that you don't have to work at it -- but you're right, it will save time if we let go of such views rather than making them part of the path that you have to learn to let go of later.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:52 am

Yes, sure, I know that's the theory.

Actually doing it is not so simple... "Let go of the view..." is still a view...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:51 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Actually doing it is not so simple... "Let go of the view..." is still a view...

Only till you manage it, then it's gone.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby Sanghamitta » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:06 pm

nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Actually doing it is not so simple... "Let go of the view..." is still a view...

Only till you manage it, then it's gone.

:namaste:

You see this as a one off ?
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Sutta Readers: Shoot Me Down, Please

Postby nowheat » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:12 pm

Sanghamitta wrote:
nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Actually doing it is not so simple... "Let go of the view..." is still a view...

Only till you manage it, then it's gone.

:namaste:

You see this as a one off ?

My understanding is that the Buddha saw it that way. Once one became an arahant and finally let go of views, they did not return to them. We would be talking experiential knowledge here, not theoretical.

What is your thought?

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests