Load of Kalapas

[Brizzy]

Hi

In a spirit of inquiry :-

1. Are "Kalapas" mentioned in the four Nikayas?

2. In the same vein, is momentary concentration or sixteen nanas mentioned in the four Nikayas?

3. Is a seven fold Noble path mentioned in the four Nikayas?

4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"?

5. Is access concentration mentioned in the four Nikayas?

6. Do path/fruit arise one after the other according to the four Nikayas?

7. If later works differ from the four Nikayas, should we twist words and meanings to make the suttas fit the later teachings?

8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence?

9. Do the four Nikayas teach the ten paramis?

10. Do the four Nikayas, state that when the Buddha has gone, then the suttas & vinaya should be a monks guide and nothing else.(this is the most important question).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Brizzy,

Without double-checking my answers...

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. It probably encompasses both.
5. No
6. Don't know - it depends how you define 'path' (i.e. there, or on the way there?)
7. No
8. All dhammas are not-self, not "I", not mine
9. No
10. Yes

Thank you for your participation in the Dhammic-Free-For-All!

Metta,
Retro.

[Brizzy]

Greetings Brizzy,

Without double-checking my answers...

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. It probably encompasses both.
5. No
6. Don't know - it depends how you define 'path' (i.e. there, or on the way there?)
7. No
8. All dhammas are not-self, not "I", not mine
9. No
10. Yes

Thank you for your participation in the Dhammic-Free-For-All!

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Retro
Thanks for your responses.
I probably agree with you on Q4.
I define the path (even for a stream enterer, as comprising the whole 8 fold path)the fruit being what follows (eventually)Q6
My point about Anatta was that the Buddha describes it as a characteristic of existence not a reality Q8.

Thanks

[Alex123]

Hi
In a spirit of inquiry :-
1. Are "Kalapas" mentioned in the four Nikayas?

not in their commenterial sense (if you are asking about rupa-kalapas).

2. In the same vein, is momentary concentration or sixteen nanas mentioned in the four Nikayas?

Momentary concentration, no.

The insight knowledges are briefly mentioned in MN24 and somewhere in DN33-34
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Paṭisambhidāmagga (KN) has a lot on insight knowledges, and there are far more than 16 of them (although some differ in name only).

3. Is a seven fold Noble path mentioned in the four Nikayas?

No. However the argument that can be made is that even for "dry insighters", their maggaphala moment is on the jhanic level fulfilling the 8th factor.

4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"?

It has two major meaning.

Memory and mindfulness.

5. Is access concentration mentioned in the four Nikayas?
6. Do path/fruit arise one after the other according to the four Nikayas?
7. If later works differ from the four Nikayas, should we twist words and meanings to make the suttas fit the later teachings?

5&7 No.

6. In some cases 4 paths and 4 fruits appear to have happened in the matter of minutes (for Bahiya), and for some monks in split seconds (if an Aryan cannot commit suicide). So both options can be justified in Nikayas.

8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence?

The suttas carefully imply that ultimately there isn't Atta.

paramis were very briefly mentioned in later KN books.

10. Do the four Nikayas, state that when the Buddha has gone, then the suttas & vinaya should be a monks guide and nothing else.(this is the most important question).

Exactly. The Buddha was the Best teacher!


With metta,

Alex

[rowyourboat]

1. Are "Kalapas" mentioned in the four Nikayas? Not as far as I know

2. In the same vein, is momentary concentration or sixteen nanas mentioned in the four Nikayas? Sankhara upekkha (nana?) is mentioned. Not the others.

3. Is a seven fold Noble path mentioned in the four Nikayas? Not as far as I know

4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"? Evidence for both definitions.

5. Is access concentration mentioned in the four Nikayas? Not as far as I know

6. Do path/fruit arise one after the other according to the four Nikayas? yes, but as people not as moments.

7. If later works differ from the four Nikayas, should we twist words and meanings to make the suttas fit the later teachings?

8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence? yes, to monks who were practicing, not to outsiders to the dhamma

9. Do the four Nikayas teach the ten paramis? not in that format, as far as I know

10. Do the four Nikayas, state that when the Buddha has gone, then the suttas & vinaya should be a monks guide and nothing else.(this is the most important question). indeed

[Brizzy]

4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"? Evidence for both definitions.

6. Do path/fruit arise one after the other according to the four Nikayas? yes, but as people not as moments.

7. If later works differ from the four Nikayas, should we twist words and meanings to make the suttas fit the later teachings?

8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence? yes, to monks who were practicing, not to outsiders to the dhamma

9. Do the four Nikayas teach the ten paramis? not in that format, as far as I know

10. Do the four Nikayas, state that when the Buddha has gone, then the suttas & vinaya should be a monks guide and nothing else.(this is the most important question). indeed

Hi

4. Is there evidence of sati, meaning bare attention in the four Nikayas?
6. " yes, but as people not as moments"
7.
8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.
9. Maybe not in any format.
10. Is that a yes or a no?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Brizzy,

8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.

I'm still a bit confused as to why it has to be one or the other, but not both?

Metta,
Retro.

[Brizzy]

Greetings Brizzy,

8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.

I'm still a bit confused as to why it has to be one or the other, but not both?

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Retro

A characteristic is a feature, that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe - it would not have to be the thing itself(reality).

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Brizzy,

I thought you might say that, but what do you mean by "the thing itself(reality)"

What thing?

Extract from SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

It seems like you're going to great lengths to demonstrate that anatta does not exist by attempting to juxtapose it against the notion of something that does exist (i.e. "the thing itself(reality)" )

Metta,
Retro.

[Brizzy]

Greetings Brizzy,

I thought you might say that, but what do you mean by "the thing itself(reality)"

What thing?

Extract from SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

It seems like you're going to great lengths to demonstrate that anatta does not exist by attempting to juxtapose it against the notion of something that does exist (i.e. "the thing itself(reality)" )

Metta,
Retro.

Hi retro

As opposed to saying it both exists & does not exist?

I am sorry if it comes across, that I am making a definitive statement. Just ways & means.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Brizzy,

As opposed to saying it both exists & does not exist?

No, I was just trying to work out how you considered anything to be more real than anything else (if not by characteristic).

Metta,
Retro.

[Virgo]

Hi Birzzy,

What does arise? A controllable self?

Kevin

[Brizzy]

Greetings Brizzy,

As opposed to saying it both exists & does not exist?

No, I was just trying to work out how you considered anything to be more real than anything else (if not by characteristic).

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Retro

A characteristic that may be used to describe something, does not have to be the actual thing itself. The thing/reality itself (nibbana) would lie beyond, and beyond words/characteristics. It is only because we are not "there", that we need ways & means/words to approach it.

[rowyourboat]

4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"? Evidence for both definitions.

6. Do path/fruit arise one after the other according to the four Nikayas? yes, but as people not as moments.

7. If later works differ from the four Nikayas, should we twist words and meanings to make the suttas fit the later teachings?

8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence? yes, to monks who were practicing, not to outsiders to the dhamma

9. Do the four Nikayas teach the ten paramis? not in that format, as far as I know

10. Do the four Nikayas, state that when the Buddha has gone, then the suttas & vinaya should be a monks guide and nothing else.(this is the most important question). indeed

Hi

4. Is there evidence of sati, meaning bare attention in the four Nikayas?
6. " yes, but as people not as moments"
7.
8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.
9. Maybe not in any format.
10. Is that a yes or a no?

4) what do you mean by 'bare attention?' I think you are thinking in terms of practices, rather than mechanisms behind these practices. When you think in terms of out forms/practices the current 'practice' will be different- but they have the same underlying mechanisms. Faithfulness to Buddhas teaching is good- but when there are teachers who are skilled in teaching a particular method you are throwing away a lot because the underlying mechanisms (seeing anicca, dukkha, anatta) leading to nibbida, viraga and nirodha are the same.

6) Well there is one sutta where this man says he gives dana only to arahantha magga monks. IMO the Buddha spoke of magga and phala people (8 types of individuals). These were simply people who were on the path or enjoying the benefits of their practice ('fruit'). However the abhidhamma in it's extreme momentariness focused right down to the point one became the other, and called it the magga-citta, phala-citta 'moments', now denoting the point of attainment.

7) the answer is obvious, hence the smile- but there are deeper issues (see 4)

8) You mean anatta is not something which exists as a separate entity but is a nature of things which exist? If so I agree.
9) paramis- well they are scattered in other lists...
1) actually on second thoughts -No. It say it should be DHAMMA and vinaya. What Dhamma is what is in agreement with what the buddha and his disciples have said.

with metta

[Brizzy]

4) what do you mean by 'bare attention?' I think you are thinking in terms of practices, rather than mechanisms behind these practices. When you think in terms of out forms/practices the current 'practice' will be different- but they have the same underlying mechanisms. Faithfulness to Buddhas teaching is good- but when there are teachers who are skilled in teaching a particular method you are throwing away a lot because the underlying mechanisms (seeing anicca, dukkha, anatta) leading to nibbida, viraga and nirodha are the same.

6) Well there is one sutta where this man says he gives dana only to arahantha magga monks. IMO the Buddha spoke of magga and phala people (8 types of individuals). These were simply people who were on the path or enjoying the benefits of their practice ('fruit'). However the abhidhamma in it's extreme momentariness focused right down to the point one became the other, and called it the magga-citta, phala-citta 'moments', now denoting the point of attainment.

7) the answer is obvious, hence the smile- but there are deeper issues (see 4)

8) You mean anatta is not something which exists as a separate entity but is a nature of things which exist? If so I agree.
9) paramis- well they are scattered in other lists...
1) actually on second thoughts -No. It say it should be DHAMMA and vinaya. What Dhamma is what is in agreement with what the buddha and his disciples have said.

with metta

Hi RYB
I was only asking about sati, because it is so important in the Buddhas teachings. What definition is actually given by the Buddha for sati?
I still think mechanisms/practices have proliferated around "momentary concentratiom" which is not actually even mentioned in the four Nikayas.
Actually it is the suttas & vinaya that are the guide. If teachings outside of these two are in line with them, they can be accepted, if teachings are not in line with Sutta/Vinaya they are to be cast aside. This is the real issue, are/have Sutta/Vinaya been distorted/ignored to further teachings/idealogy that are not the Buddhas Dhamma?

[rowyourboat]

Hi Brizzy

You ask what definition he gives sati-before I answer this question I wish to raise a point- that is that coming to conclusions based on one sutta is the source of much misunderstanding. To think that reading the what is in the suttas and practising that without any guidance whatsoever can lead to enlightenment is rather amateurish. If you want to understand something look at the whole of the dhamma vinaya, look at the context, then finally perhaps look at the pali breakdown of the word. If you have a dhamma practice also look at that. When you 'triangulate' all these sources you can get closer to what the Buddha really meant. The sutta itself is not going to be enough, but real world practice should find it's foundations and framework (ie- rooted) within the suttas.

The definition of sati includes remembering according to a sutta. But look at this: 'breathing in long he knows he is breathing in long'. This is about anapana-sati. This is not about remembering- it is about being aware. This also dovetails with the definitions of the dhamma- it is not based on time-akalika (ie- present moment), also from the satipatthana- one sees the body in the body, feelings in feelings etc and not as memories or thoughts. There is way too much evidence that this is about present moment awareness. Another telling sutta is the factors of stream entry- factor 3) yonisomanasikara- right contemplation 4) dhammanudhammapatipada- satipatthana practice- why are these two different?

Have the suttas been distorted to fit in line with newer teachings? Are you expecting a simply yes or no answer?

Consider this- the human mind is amazingly complex, different people's complexities are different, the methods of what will drive such minds from point a to point b are varied, the teaching styles that different personalities will find effective are varied, different interpretations (Which is all what we have- even ours) of the pali suttas are varied. Ultimately with this level of complexity how can anyone say that there is only one way (as in the suttas) that works for everyone, and the suttas have been perfectly understood to know what that one way is, in the first place. What we have now is a system that different teachers teach what they understand to be the dhamma- it may work, it may not. Who are we to say? But it is interesting that there isn't one teacher that I have come across that can confidently say that the pure satipatthana method from the suttas is the way to go. To me this says that there is much work in understanding the suttas to be done.