Mundane and supramundane right view in Peter C86's Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Mundane and supramundane right view in Peter C86's Dhamma

Post by PeterC86 »

binocular wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:48 pm Thank you, bhante.

Dhammanando wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:43 pm
DooDoot wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:25 pmThe above is a reasonable idea however what happens if my mind enters the path based on something i read on Dhammawheel? What gift have i given to warrant encounter with a voice of another? Thank you
Readers of Dhamma Wheel who haven't given any gifts in the present life, or who have given gifts but have never held mundane right view, will get to encounter the voice of another owing to dānamaya puñña made in a former life when they did hold mundane right view.
Then what about all those posters, including one of high rank and power, who say words to the effect that mundane right view is not needed, or that it's essentially still wrong view, and who advocate only supramundane right view?
Greetings Binocular,

To get to Nibbana, one needs to understand Dependent Origination to liberate the intellect, for that, mundane right view is necessary, which is nothing more than understanding DO. Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore. So there is no difference in mundane right view and supramundane right view, only your progress on the path (with or without effluents). Do you understand this explanation?

Be well.
Last edited by Dhammanando on Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed thread title
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by binocular »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 amTo get to Nibbana, one needs to understand Dependent Origination to liberate the intellect, for that, mundane right view is necessary, which is nothing more than understanding DO. Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore. So there is no difference in mundane right view and supramundane right view, only your progress on the path (with or without effluents).

Do you understand this explanation?
No.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by SteRo »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am ...Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore.
That's obviously a misunderstanding. DO teaches the origination of suffering and the reverse DO teaches the cessation of suffering. Ignorance being the root of the origination of suffering and cessation of ignorance being the cause of cessation of suffering.

It seems PeterC86 is equating suffering with discernments of 'right' and 'wrong' for which no support can be found in the suttas.

And he seems to equate 'understanding of DO' with cessation of ignorance which is strange because there are many who have understood DO but not even attained sotapanna.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

binocular wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:06 am
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 amTo get to Nibbana, one needs to understand Dependent Origination to liberate the intellect, for that, mundane right view is necessary, which is nothing more than understanding DO. Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore. So there is no difference in mundane right view and supramundane right view, only your progress on the path (with or without effluents).

Do you understand this explanation?
No.
Mundane right view is learning to understand DO. Through fully understanding DO, one gets supramundane or transcendental right view, which is the realization that there is no wrong or right. Learning to understand DO, is learning to understand that there is no wrong or right, but until you fully understand DO, there are still effluents (through one still separating wrong and right) because one is still clinging/grasping. This clinging/grasping comes from not fully understanding DO.

Understanding will come through experience.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by Dhammanando »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am To get to Nibbana, one needs to understand Dependent Origination to liberate the intellect, for that, mundane right view is necessary, which is nothing more than understanding DO.
That's not so.

The view:
‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’
is in the Suttas called "right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions" or "right view as a wholesome kammic course".

In the Abhidhamma's Dhammasaṅgaṇī it's called "accomplishment/success in view", diṭṭhisampadā.

In the Abhidhamma's Vibhaṅga it's called "knowledge of ownership of kamma", kammassakatañāṇa.

In the commentaries it's called "mundane right view", lokiyā sammādiṭṭhi.

None of these four terms is applied to understanding dependent arising.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

SteRo wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:18 am
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am ...Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore.
That's obviously a misunderstanding. DO teaches the origination of suffering and the reverse DO teaches the cessation of suffering. Ignorance being the root of the origination of suffering and cessation of ignorance being the cause of cessation of suffering.

It seems PeterC86 is equating suffering with discernments of 'right' and 'wrong' for which no support can be found in the suttas.

And he seems to equate 'understanding of DO' with cessation of ignorance which is strange because there are many who have understood DO but not even attained sotapanna.
I see your misunderstanding. The formless is still dependent upon something to be formless, so until one has transcended that formless realm with fruition, one has not fully understood DO.

What suffering would there be if you can't distinguish right from wrong? Besides physical pain of course.
Last edited by PeterC86 on Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:36 am
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am To get to Nibbana, one needs to understand Dependent Origination to liberate the intellect, for that, mundane right view is necessary, which is nothing more than understanding DO.
That's not so.

The view:
‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’
is in the Suttas called "right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions" or "right view as a wholesome kammic course".

In the Abhidhamma's Dhammasaṅgaṇī it's called "accomplishment/success in view", diṭṭhisampadā.

In the Abhidhamma's Vibhaṅga it's called "knowledge of ownership of kamma", kammassakatañāṇa.

In the commentaries it's called "mundane right view", lokiyā sammādiṭṭhi.

None of these four terms is applied to understanding dependent arising.
Everything in the Buddhist teaching has, directly or indirectly, to do with dependent arising, as realizing Nibbana, or release from Samsara, can only be attained through fully understanding dependent arising, because the first distinction; the realm of perception vs non-perception, is of dependent arising. There can only be perception in relation to non-perception. And everything talked about, without one having attained fruition, is build upon this realm, because it is not Nibbana. Which means that everything one distinguishes, until one realizes Nibbana, is of dependent arising, and therefore related to it. It is only through understanding this interconnectedness that one is able to transcend it.
Last edited by PeterC86 on Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by SteRo »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:39 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:18 am
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am ...Upon fully understanding DO, one realizes that there is no right and wrong anymore.
That's obviously a misunderstanding. DO teaches the origination of suffering and the reverse DO teaches the cessation of suffering. Ignorance being the root of the origination of suffering and cessation of ignorance being the cause of cessation of suffering.

It seems PeterC86 is equating suffering with discernments of 'right' and 'wrong' for which no support can be found in the suttas.

And he seems to equate 'understanding of DO' with cessation of ignorance which is strange because there are many who have understood DO but not even attained sotapanna.
I see your misunderstanding. The formless is still dependant upon something to be formless, so until one has transcended that formless realm with fruition, one has not fully understood DO.
I have not even mentioned the formless. The formless is not even mentioned in DO. You seem to be trapped in your private theory.
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:39 am What suffering would there be if you can't distinguish right from wrong? Besides physical pain of course.
There is neither suffering in distinguishing right from wrong nor is there suffering in not distinguishing right from wrong.
Suffering originates from ignorance, not from distinguishing right from wrong and not from not distinguishing right from wrong.
Suffering ceases upon cessation of ignorance, not upon cessation of distinguishing right from wrong and not upon cessation of not distinguishing right from wrong.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by Dhammanando »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:59 amEverything in the Buddhist teaching has, directly or indirectly, to do with dependent arising,
This is patently not the case.
Thus have I heard: Once the Exalted One dwelt near Sāvatthī; and there he addressed the monks, saying:

"Monks."

"Yes, lord," they replied; and the Exalted One said:

"Monks, there are these five disadvantages from not chewing a tooth-stick. What five?

"The eyes become affected; the mouth becomes bad-smelling; the channels of taste are not purified; phlegm and mucus get on food; and one does not enjoy food. Verily, monks, these are the five disadvantages from not chewing a tooth-stick.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

I see your misunderstanding. The formless is still dependant upon something to be formless, so until one has transcended that formless realm with fruition, one has not fully understood DO.
SteRo wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:01 am I have not even mentioned the formless. The formless is not even mentioned in DO. You seem to be trapped in your private theory.
I mentioned it on purpose.
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:39 am What suffering would there be if you can't distinguish right from wrong? Besides physical pain of course.
There is neither suffering in distinguishing right from wrong nor is there suffering in not distinguishing right from wrong.
Suffering originates from ignorance, not from distinguishing right from wrong and not from not distinguishing right from wrong.
Suffering ceases upon cessation of ignorance, not upon cessation of distinguishing right from wrong and not upon cessation of not distinguishing right from wrong.
The suffering lies in still trying to cling/grasp, with which I mean that you still (try to) differentiate between suffering and non-suffering, which is neither right nor wrong... which come from ignorance of not understanding DO.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:26 am
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:59 amEverything in the Buddhist teaching has, directly or indirectly, to do with dependent arising,
This is patently not the case.
Thus have I heard: Once the Exalted One dwelt near Sāvatthī; and there he addressed the monks, saying:

"Monks."

"Yes, lord," they replied; and the Exalted One said:

"Monks, there are these five disadvantages from not chewing a tooth-stick. What five?

"The eyes become affected; the mouth becomes bad-smelling; the channels of taste are not purified; phlegm and mucus get on food; and one does not enjoy food. Verily, monks, these are the five disadvantages from not chewing a tooth-stick.
If you understand my explanation you will see that the only way out of DO is Nibbana. You are free to interpret what you want though.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by Dhammanando »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:55 amIf you understand my explanation you will see that the only way out of DO is Nibbana.
Nobody is disputing that. But the meaning of mundane and supramundane right view isn't a matter of opinion. The texts give both terms clear definitions and only the latter has to do with insight-related topics like dependent arising.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:12 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:55 amIf you understand my explanation you will see that the only way out of DO is Nibbana.
Nobody is disputing that. But the meaning of mundane and supramundane right view isn't a matter of opinion. The texts give both terms clear definitions and only the latter has to do with insight-related topics like dependent arising.
What opinion? Supramundane is just the transcendence of mundane, i.e. without effluents, which can be translated as progress on the path.

Supramundane right view is thus the fruition of mundane right view and attained after transcending DO.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by Dhammanando »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:56 pm What opinion?
The opinion that:
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am mundane right view ... is nothing more than understanding DO.
If that's what it was, then the texts would have defined it so. They didn't.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Transcendental Right View without first having Mundane Right View?

Post by PeterC86 »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:06 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:56 pm What opinion?
The opinion that:
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:26 am mundane right view ... is nothing more than understanding DO.
If that's what it was, then the texts would have defined it so. They didn't.
I explained that everything outside of Nibbana is of dependent arising, because the first, or last (depending on which viewpoint one takes), sphere is that of perception vs non-perception. So until supramundane right view is attained (upon liberation), one is trying to understand DO through mundane right view. DO is the mechanism through which form and the formless are interpreted and come to being. So, until Nibbana and supramundane right view is attained, everything is related to DO. The whole path is about understanding that everything one interprets is of DO and interconnected.

So one cannot have supramundane right view without mundane right view, cause this would say that one can be in Nibbana without walking the path.

Supramundane right view is Nibbana;
Everything outside of Nibbana is of DO;
So to get to Nibbana, one must learn to understand DO to transcend it;
Mundane right view is learning to understand DO;
If DO is fully understood (one has transcended perception and non-perception), one transcends DO and attains transcendental right view and Nibbana.

Therefore, the statement is not an opinion, but an insight, as it is about transcending DO and has no essence.

One could also say that mundane right view is the view through which one is able to let go, with supramundane right view one has let go.

Now a lot of words have been written about something that does not require words, as it only leads to confusion. I merely try to solve this confusion by explaining that they are essentially not different, so there is no base for confusion.

If the texts you are referring to say otherwise, I wish you good luck with them.
Last edited by PeterC86 on Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply