Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Mr. Seek »

The monk who hasn’t slipped past or held back,
transcending all
this objectification,
sloughs off the near shore & far—
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

The monk who hasn’t slipped past or held back,
knowing with regard to the world
that “All this is unreal,”
sloughs off the near shore & far—
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

Snp 1.1
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:38 pm The monk who hasn’t slipped past or held back,
transcending all
this objectification,
sloughs off the near shore & far—
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

The monk who hasn’t slipped past or held back,
knowing with regard to the world
that “All this is unreal,”

sloughs off the near shore & far—
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

Snp 1.1
I was just reading the commentary to that exact verse not more than 2 minutes ago. What a coincidence.
Attachments
Niddessa 2.jpg
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Mr. Seek »

Yeah; and to be honest, "sloughs off the near shore and far" is what I find most interesting--the monk abandons both samsara and nirvana; cp. SN 1.1.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:51 pm Yeah; and to be honest, "sloughs off the near shore and far" is what I find most interesting--the monk abandons both samsara and nirvana; cp. SN 1.1.
Hmm does it say that though? The commentary takes a different view. I've taken a screenshot of the more interesting interpretation. What are you basing your claim on? Of course, if by abandoning you simply mean not attaching to, and if this is referring to Saṃsāra and Nibbāna, then it could be made to work. You can't experience the reality of nibbāna if you are still craving and attaching, and so stuck in Saṃsāra.
Attachments
far shore.jpg
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Mr. Seek »

I don't know the Pali, but Google says to slough off is to get rid of as useless or unwanted. e.g as a snake sloughs off its old skin. The near shore is where we're at, the far shore is the goal one strives for, could be nirvana or any other final spiritual attainment. The monk realizes that both are unreal, mere concepts, products of objectification and perception, so he sloughs them off. From thereon he is neither on this shore nor the next, unbound, cannot be classified. SN 1.1 says that's how Gotama crossed over--by neither pushing forward to try and cross over the flood, nor by staying in place, in the flood. At least that's how I understand it.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by SDC »

Seems to mean that no matter what he thinks the far shore is, all those ideas are “not thus”, i.e. his idea of what the far shore is cannot possibly be what it actually is, because that idea is determined, so he abandons that idea and keeps striving to discern the undetermined (nibbana).

In regard to the world, same as Snp 1.1, this also sounds similar:
SN 35.31 wrote:… For, bhikkhus, whatever one conceives, whatever one conceives in, whatever one conceives from, whatever one conceives as ‘mine’—that is otherwise. The world, becoming otherwise, attached to becoming, seeks delight only in becoming.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:23 pm I don't know the Pali, but Google says to slough off is to get rid of as useless or unwanted. e.g finally sloughed off the depression that had been weighing him down for months, or as a snake sloughs off its old skin.
That would make your reading difficult, since we aren't to cast off nibbāna.

The near shore is where we're at, the far shore is the goal one strives for, nirvana. The monk realizes that both are unreal, mere concepts, products of objectification and perception, so he sloughs them off. From thereon he is neither on this shore nor the next, unbound. SN 1.1 says that's how Gotama crossed over--by neither pushing forward to try and cross over the flood, nor by staying in place, in the flood. At least that's how I understand it.
In other suttas the Buddha taught that nibbāna exists, through use of it's similes.

“There exists, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

Rather than nibbāna being a mere concept that we cast off, it looks quite real in of itself. Indeed he even says here if it weren't then there would be no escape from the round.
The monk realizes that both are unreal, mere concepts, products of objectification and perception, so he sloughs them off.
I think you are perhaps misunderstanding just what "objectification and perception" means. The above is Ven. Ṭhānissaro's translation of "papañca".

Yo nāccasārī na paccasārī,
Sabbaṁ accagamā imaṁ papañcaṁ;
So bhikkhu jahāti orapāraṁ,
Urago jiṇṇamivattacaṁ purāṇaṁ.


When the Buddha spoke of papañca, he had a specific concept which proliferates in mind. Namely, that of a self.

‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhave, papañcitametaṁ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti papañcitametaṁ, ‘bhavissan’ti …pe… ‘na bhavissan’ti … ‘rūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘arūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘saññī bhavissan’ti … ‘asaññī bhavissan’ti … ‘nevasaññīnāsaññī bhavissan’ti papañcitametaṁ.

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a proliferation; ‘I am this’ is a proliferation; ‘I shall be’ is a proliferation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a proliferation. Proliferation is a disease, proliferation is a tumour, proliferation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of proliferation.’’
- SN 35.248

Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism). This is quite a different thing to papañcaṁ as referring to everything being a concept only such as vedanā, the āyatana or nibbāna etc which are themselves proliferations.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:35 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:23 pm I don't know the Pali, but Google says to slough off is to get rid of as useless or unwanted. e.g finally sloughed off the depression that had been weighing him down for months, or as a snake sloughs off its old skin.
That would make your reading difficult, since we aren't to cast off nibbāna.

The near shore is where we're at, the far shore is the goal one strives for, nirvana. The monk realizes that both are unreal, mere concepts, products of objectification and perception, so he sloughs them off. From thereon he is neither on this shore nor the next, unbound. SN 1.1 says that's how Gotama crossed over--by neither pushing forward to try and cross over the flood, nor by staying in place, in the flood. At least that's how I understand it.
In other suttas the Buddha taught that nibbāna exists, through use of it's similes.

“There exists, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

Rather than nibbāna being a mere concept that we cast off, it looks quite real in of itself. Indeed he even says here if it weren't then there would be no escape from the round.
The monk realizes that both are unreal, mere concepts, products of objectification and perception, so he sloughs them off.
I think you are perhaps misunderstanding just what "objectification and perception" means. The above is Ven. Ṭhānissaro's translation of "papañca".

Yo nāccasārī na paccasārī,
Sabbaṁ accagamā imaṁ papañcaṁ;
So bhikkhu jahāti orapāraṁ,
Urago jiṇṇamivattacaṁ purāṇaṁ.


When the Buddha spoke of papañca, he had a specific concept which proliferates in mind. Namely, that of a self.

‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhave, papañcitametaṁ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti papañcitametaṁ, ‘bhavissan’ti …pe… ‘na bhavissan’ti … ‘rūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘arūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘saññī bhavissan’ti … ‘asaññī bhavissan’ti … ‘nevasaññīnāsaññī bhavissan’ti papañcitametaṁ.

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a proliferation; ‘I am this’ is a proliferation; ‘I shall be’ is a proliferation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a proliferation. Proliferation is a disease, proliferation is a tumour, proliferation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of proliferation.’’
- SN 35.248

Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism). This is quite a different thing to papañcaṁ as referring to everything being a concept only such as vedanā, the āyatana or nibbāna etc which are themselves proliferations.
No, papañca is always defined as taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi. Not only the idea/sense/feeling of self.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm
No, papañca is always defined as taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi. Not only the idea/sense/feeling of self.
I specifically said

"Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism)."

Also please edit your post. No need to quote everything I said. It makes for bad reading.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:39 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm
No, papañca is always defined as taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi. Not only the idea/sense/feeling of self.
I specifically said

"Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism)."

Also please edit your post. No need to quote everything I said. It makes for bad reading.
it doesn't refer.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:41 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:39 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm
No, papañca is always defined as taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi. Not only the idea/sense/feeling of self.
I specifically said

"Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism)."

Also please edit your post. No need to quote everything I said. It makes for bad reading.
it doesn't refer.
You can change it to "means" if you prefer. When the Buddha talks about conceptual proliferation he is talking about craving, the concept of self and the various views spun on that basis.

You still haven't edited your post.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:44 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:41 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:39 pm

I specifically said

"Conceptual proliferation therefore refers to the sense of self, and the various views we spin based on that concept (such as Eternalism vs Annihilationism)."

Also please edit your post. No need to quote everything I said. It makes for bad reading.
it doesn't refer.
You can change it to "means" if you prefer. When the Buddha talks about conceptual proliferation he is talking about craving, the concept of self and the various views spun on that basis.

You still haven't edited your post.
I don't have to change anything, and I was referring to the whole of your post, because it's on the whole is wrong.

Now you admit, for instance, that papañca is also taṇhā. But what you said is again incorrect. There is no linear progression between those items, they are a vortex.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 8:08 pm
I don't have to change anything, and I was referring to the whole of your post, because it's on the whole is wrong.
Well you do, but never mind. I’ll just ask one of the admins to edit it for you.
Now you admit, for instance, that papañca is also taṇhā. But what you said is again incorrect. There is no linear progression between those items, they are a vortex.
I never said otherwise, and of course there is a progression from grasping to a sense of self to views based on that notion.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by waryoffolly »

You'll have to let me know if I represent your views correctly in the below. I'm relying on other posts you've made as well to make my comments here.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:35 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:23 pm I don't know the Pali, but Google says to slough off is to get rid of as useless or unwanted. e.g finally sloughed off the depression that had been weighing him down for months, or as a snake sloughs off its old skin.
That would make your reading difficult, since we aren't to cast off nibbāna.
But MN 1 clearly states to not 'mannati' about nibbana (https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi). From what I can tell you limit 'mannati' to 'conceive as self' although the word seems to generally mean 'to think' or 'to imagine'. Regardless, using your interpretation wouldn't not conceiving of nibbana as me/mine/self in any way shape or form be effectively equivalent to letting go of even the idea of (owning) nibbana? For all practical purposes that is 'casting off' even nibbana, at the very least in the sense of complete non-clinging to the idea of nibbana. (And moreover not conceiving of nibbana as self in any sense naturally leads to the cessation of concerns about whether or not nibbana 'substantially exists or substantially doesn't exist'-the self view is the root cause of other speculative viewpoints: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.7/en/bodhi)

In other suttas the Buddha taught that nibbāna exists, through use of it's similes.

“There exists, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

Rather than nibbāna being a mere concept that we cast off, it looks quite real in of itself. Indeed he even says here if it weren't then there would be no escape from the round.
How do you avoid eternalism with the above? If nibbana is a substantially existent external dhamma cognized by mental vinnana then doesn't that naturally lead to a description of the post-mortem arahant as eternally being conscious of said substantially existent external dhamma?

Yet the suttas instruct us not to assume any of positions in the tetralemma applied to the post mortem status of the arahant since they are a 'thicket of views': https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/thanissaro . To smuggle nibbana into 'the all' would be to limit and measure the arahant by a fixed perceptual basis, but no such criteria exists: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.11/en/bodhi .

The answer an arahant gives to 'Does something remain with the cessation of the six sense spheres?' isn't 'Nibbana', but instead 'don't say that something remains': https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/thanissaro . (And this also applies to the question 'does nothing remain?')

To be honest, I sometimes wonder if leaving nibbana untranslated was a good idea. Translating nibbana as 'quenching' or 'going out' (of greed, hate, delusion, or of all unskillful states) would've made it far less mysterious.

[My usual disclaimer applies, I probably will only engage in a round or two of back and forth with you]
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Classical Theravada, the Realist Buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

zan wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:39 pm
...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20
Why would phenomena "flow on"? What is the meaning of "flowing on"? What would a realist be concerned with "flowing on"? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply