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).
Load of Kalapas
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Load of Kalapas
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.
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.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi Retroretrofuturist wrote: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.
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
Re: Load of Kalapas
not in their commenterial sense (if you are asking about rupa-kalapas).Brizzy wrote:Hi
In a spirit of inquiry :-
1. Are "Kalapas" mentioned in the four Nikayas?
Momentary concentration, no.2. In the same vein, is momentary concentration or sixteen nanas mentioned in the four Nikayas?
The insight knowledges are briefly mentioned in MN24 and somewhere in DN33-34
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Paṭisambhidāmagga (KN) has a lot on insight knowledges, and there are far more than 16 of them (although some differ in name only).
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.3. Is a seven fold Noble path mentioned in the four Nikayas?
It has two major meaning.4. Does sati actually mean bare attention? Or does it mean "thinking/recollecting"?
Memory and mindfulness.
5&7 No.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?
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.
The suttas carefully imply that ultimately there isn't Atta.8. Do the four Nikayas state that Anatta is a reality of existence?
paramis were very briefly mentioned in later KN books.
Exactly. The Buddha was the Best teacher!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).
With metta,
Alex
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Load of Kalapas
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
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
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hirowyourboat wrote:
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
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
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Load of Kalapas
Greetings Brizzy,
Metta,
Retro.
I'm still a bit confused as to why it has to be one or the other, but not both?Brizzy wrote:8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi Retroretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Brizzy,
I'm still a bit confused as to why it has to be one or the other, but not both?Brizzy wrote:8. Anatta is a characteristic not a reality.
Metta,
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/auth ... tself.html
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Load of Kalapas
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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)" )"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.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi retroretrofuturist wrote: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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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)" )"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.
Metta,
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
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Load of Kalapas
Greetings Brizzy,
Metta,
Retro.
No, I was just trying to work out how you considered anything to be more real than anything else (if not by characteristic).Brizzy wrote:As opposed to saying it both exists & does not exist?
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi Birzzy,
What does arise? A controllable self?
Kevin
What does arise? A controllable self?
Kevin
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi Retroretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Brizzy,
No, I was just trying to work out how you considered anything to be more real than anything else (if not by characteristic).Brizzy wrote:As opposed to saying it both exists & does not exist?
Metta,
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.
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Load of Kalapas
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.Brizzy wrote:Hirowyourboat wrote:
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
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?
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
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Re: Load of Kalapas
Hi RYBrowyourboat wrote: 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
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?