On Tradition

[mjaviem]

I think the Buddhist path is not as linear as learning worldly knowledge. Sometimes we get instructions, but we do not understand it immediately. It takes time to stabilize. I also have the tendency to seek more clarifications, but thinking that what is available is insufficient might say more about my own shortcomings. The dhamma is said to be for the ones who want or ask for little.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

If I were to ask you to explain the colour "pink", could you somehow provide relevant edification and meaning by adding more words to it?

I can expand on it. If someone blind were to ask me, "what is pink?" I would say that "It is a shade of red with more white present in it." It doesn't give the blind man any more of an experiential understanding of what "pink" actually is. Such an understanding is impossible so long as he is blind. It does, however, define "pink" more precisely than simply the word "pink." The blind man now has a theoretical knowledge of pink, whereas before he was utterly ignorant of it.

And that expansion, as factually true as it was, provided no "relevant edification and meaning by adding more words to it".

Thank you for highlighting the extraneous nature of conceptual proliferation, where the original thing is self-evident for anyone with eyes to see.



Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

You aren't blind or colourblind. You don't need an explanation of that. Nonetheless, said explanation above would establish the blind man with a definition of "pink" that accords with reality. To be even more precise, one would have to explain electromagnetic radiation, the true principle behind the human perception of "colours." You would have to explain that the eye is sensitive to a narrow band of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and that this band of frequencies constitutes a "rainbow" of visual manifestations in the mind.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

You aren't blind or colourblind. You don't need an explanation of that. Nonetheless, said explanation above would establish the blind man with a definition of "pink" that accords with reality. To be even more precise, one would have to explain electromagnetic radiation, the true principle behind the human perception of "colours." You would have to explain that the eye is sensitive to a narrow band of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and that thus band of frequencies constitutes a "rainbow" of visual manifestations in the mind.

All of which is irrelevant since the Dhamma is about phenomena - things that arise. It's in the name.

The tools of scholarly enterprise are not the tools for nippapanca.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

You should be more precise with your wording then. You requested an elaboration of "pink" beyond just the word "pink," not a Dharma lesson on "pink."

The "Dharma lesson" on "pink" is to renounce it. Easy for a blind man.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Coëmgenu,

You should be more precise with your wording then. You requested an elaboration of "pink" beyond just the word "pink," not a Dharma lesson on "pink."

Actually, no, I was very precise with my wording. Read it again...

If I were to ask you to explain the colour "pink", could you somehow provide relevant edification and meaning by adding more words to it?

The answer is no.

And note, I didn't ask for more words for the sake of more words, nor ask for a Dhamma lesson.

It is OK for there to be space and for things to be thus.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

Perhaps you've also a deficient framing of "relevant edification," because my elaboration was full of relevant edification for the one who does not know what "pink" is.

[Ontheway]

LOL

Once more, I have nothing to add in response to your perspective, as you're insistent on proliferation and cannot fathom why anyone else may not be.

Aren't your interpretation one of those modern proliferation (Papanca) too?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

LOL

Once more, I have nothing to add in response to your perspective, as you're insistent on proliferation and cannot fathom why anyone else may not be.

Aren't your interpretation one of those modern proliferation (Papanca) too?

Everyone has their own "understanding", per how they understand things... but that's true of everyone, yourself included, regardless of whether they rely on extraneous works or not.

"To understand" is praised by the Buddha, to conceptually proliferate is not.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ontheway]

Greetings,

LOL

Once more, I have nothing to add in response to your perspective, as you're insistent on proliferation and cannot fathom why anyone else may not be.

Aren't your interpretation one of those modern proliferation (Papanca) too?

Everyone has their own "understanding", per how they understand things... but that's true of everyone, yourself included, regardless of whether they rely on extraneous works or not.

"To understand" is praised by the Buddha, to conceptually proliferate is not.

Metta,
Paul.

In all your posts, you are quite used to labelling Pāli Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha with "proliferation"...

I might as well also label your contemporary teachers' modern interpretation (come out after 2500++ years, can't even use the Pāli language as native, relied on texts preserved by ancient Elders but then so ungrateful that these modern teachers attacked those ancient Elders in return, coming from a modern country that has nothing to do with ancient Indian culture, corrupted by modern ideas, with bias and often prejudice) as unnecessary confusing "Papanca".

I'm curious, have you actually read them? Because if we want to reject certain subject, we should have sufficient knowledge on this subject. Not just "my guru said is wrong, so I reject it." Been there, and I suffered 10 years ++ ...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

In all your posts, you are quite used to labelling Pāli Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha with "proliferation"...

Not true, since I'm discussing the act of proliferation, rather than artefacts which may or may not be the result of such a process, but do go on...

I might as well also label your contemporary teachers' modern interpretation (come out after 2500++ years, can't even use the Pāli language as native, relied on texts preserved by ancient Elders but then so ungrateful that these modern teachers attacked those ancient Elders in return, coming from a modern country that has nothing to do with ancient Indian culture, corrupted by modern ideas, with bias and often prejudice) as unnecessary confusing "Papanca".

I don't find indignant drama of interest, so I have no compulsion to reply to this.

I'm curios, have you actually read them? Because if we want to reject certain subject, we should have sufficient knowledge on this subject. Not just "my guru said is wrong, so I reject it."

You're asking what traditional commentarial works have I've read? I don't have a list or anything like that, but off the top of my head:

- Visuddhimagga
- Abhidhammattha Sangaha
- The commentary for the Satipatthana Sutta
- The ones Bhikkhu Bodhi translated for BPS (sorry, I can't remember which ones they were)

Plus, and possibly most significantly, as I read the Sutta Pitaka, I read all of Bhikkhu Bodhi's (and other translators) footnotes, along with the corresponding interpretations from the commentary that were shared.

So, no, it's not "my guru said is wrong, so I reject it"... such sectarian partisanship has no place in understanding the Dhamma.

Do you have an actual point to make, or is your intention merely to discredit me as a means to defend that which you are partial to? Shouting "heretic!" is a bit ho hum.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ontheway]

All of which is irrelevant since the Dhamma is about phenomena - things that arise. It's in the name.

What Coëmgenu did was analysis (or further explanation) of term and concept.

Analysis is very important work in understanding the Dhamma. This is why Lord Buddha often explained things in brief, then move to details, and further to full exposition.

Like the case of Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (in brief about 4NTs). The Buddha explained in brief.

Then in Saccavibhanga Sutta, the Buddha praised Arahant Sariputta Thera for great wisdom and capable to explain 4NTs in details. In a way, Saccavibhanga Sutta is a form of Atthakatha to Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Another example would be Paṭiccasamuppāda Sutta (in brief). Then to Vibhaṅga sutta (in details). Further up to Mahanidana sutta (full exposition).

We can't be dismissive if we want to penetrate the meaning of Dhamma and gain deeper understanding. A superficial reading of texts wouldn't bring us anywhere...

[Ontheway]

- Visuddhimagga
- Abhidhammattha Sangaha
- The commentary for the Satipatthana Sutta
- The ones Bhikkhu Bodhi translated for BPS (sorry, I can't remember which ones they were)

Really? Are you sure you are not playing a listing game here?

Your posts often showed only little knowledge on Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus, Saccas, Indriyas too. Quoting this sutta and that sutta without context sometimes.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

This is why Lord Buddha often explained things in brief, then move to details, and further to full exposition.

Yes, but that is irrelevant, because that's not what's being argued against.

What I am arguing against is the presumption that the Buddha's teaching is inadequate and that it necessarily needs to be fleshed out by someone who happens to finds it incomplete.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Really? Are you sure you are not playing a listing game here?

I simply answered your question. Whether you choose to be a jerk upon hearing that truthful answer, is up to you.

Your posts often showed only little knowledge on Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus, Saccas, Indriyas too. Quoting this sutta and that sutta without context sometimes.

Or, I happen to understand things differently to you.

Metta,
Paul.