It can be all too easy to dismiss a sutta as being "late" simply because we do not like it. I agree. We see this played out sadly many times here. I've seen the nimitta of it at SuttaCentral too in the past. Something to be wary of.
"Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
“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.”
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.”
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
Yes, and a more subtle problem is when the terminology of later expositions has developed somewhat from the suttas. For example the concept of concentration signs:
Sylvester wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:30 am Thanks for the kind wishes Dmytro.
Mike - if you're looking for a sutta reference to the pyrotechnic nimittas, Ven Analayo's entry on the Upakkilesa Sutta, MN 128 can be found here
[New link as the old one has disappeared:]
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... asutta.pdf
While the obhāsanimitta (sign of light, per BB) could be referring to a pyrotechnic nimitta, the rūpanimitta could be somewhat broader than something that is interpreted as merely "visual". Given that the bulk of our experience of rūpa stems from physical contact, the limitations of language could hamper discussion of those rūpa stemming from mental contact (alluded to in MN 28). How does one describe the experience of liquidity born of mental contact? Perhaps the rūpa stemming from mental contact is not of the primaries but of derived rūpa, probably "space" per MN 28 as well.
Mike
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
Indeed, such as when the Vim. & Vism. replace rūpa (image) with nimitta (sign) so that "sign" becomes "image". That said, the Vim. talks both in terms of nimitta as image and just image. Sadly my Chinese skills aren't developed to analyse the text any further.
“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.”
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.”
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
Actually the sign is not about image . It is the winds perception meditation that resulted in what is called the sign (ie the fine winds) permeates the whole body at the end .
No bashing No gossiping
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
Thanks a lot, Mike, for your feedback! As I presumed, ven. Anālayo wrote another extremely thoughtful work. Looking forward to reading it.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm Here's another review.
https://dhivanthomasjones.wordpress.com ... -polemics/
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
How true are your ways?
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:54 am
Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’
It seems to me the issue of superiority conceit is about pride, no? Whether or not one's own way is true or superior somehow, it seems to me that the issue at stake is whether this awareness leads to pride and ego, which is a big obstacle to enlightenment.
Am I missing something? (Also, sorry for posting late on this. I'm new here.)
Am I missing something? (Also, sorry for posting late on this. I'm new here.)