Just to follow up on the bolded bit briefly, the earlier Section XIX-27 sees the attainment of stream-entry, so...mikenz66 wrote:Now at XX 93-104 we are into the insight sections. In particular, "Knowledge of Rise and Fall". It seems to me that here the focus is much more on the actual experience. Just seeing formations rising an falling. This is said to be a , key step, often misinterpreted as awakening, hence the discussion starting at XX 105 on "The Ten Imperfections of Insight".
- Is the Visuddhimagga intended to show a chronological/sequential path to purification, chapter by chapter?
- If so, would the teaching in Chapter XX (and beyond) pertain then only to a sekha?
Also, in the sections mentioned above, did you get the impression that for those time periods which were deemed future or past, they were known through inference and extrapolation, as opposed to direct observation, facilitated by recollection of past lives, omniscience or mental time-travel? That is how it seemed, to me. It seemed as if the impermanence of x was observed and this impermanence was extrapolated to the past and future.
I know you're reticent to proceed too far along this path, but I have a question that I think is relevant to the topic, and I promise to tread carefully...mikenz66 wrote:Since I don't find the approach of Ven Nanavira convincing, I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex.
In Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of Nanavira he says the following...
Obviously, I find it confusing personally because I'm not au fait with the "the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" and like Bhikkhu Bodhi, "I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled" - risks I'm reticent to take (and you already know my reasons why, so I won't elaborate further here).Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:I am not saying that the detailed exposition of pa.ticca-samuppaada (PS) as found in the Pali Commentaries can in all particulars be traced back to the Suttas. The aim of the Commentaries, in their treatment of PS, is to correlate the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma. This results in an explanation of PS that is far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves. I do not think that acceptance of the basic dynamics of the "three-life" approach entails acceptance of all the details of the commentarial explanation, and I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled. All that I wish to maintain is that the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives and as such describes the generative structure of sa.msaara, the round of repeated births.
So when you say "I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex" are you simply suggesting, like Bhikkhu Bodhi that "the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives" or are you actually explicitly saying you find that "correlat[ion of] the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" isn't particularly complex even though Bhikkhu Bodhi says it is "far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves"?
The relevance of this line of questioning?... I want to ascertain whether adhering to the Mahavihara account necessitates embracing "the whole box and dice", or whether adoption of simply the three-life version of dependent origination (devoid of the complexities Bhihhu Bodhi refers to) is sufficient in order to claim full compliance with the Mahavihara position. Are there shades of grey in what constitutes the "Mahavihara account" that Shonin is inquiring about?
Metta,
Retro.