Conventionally he was a human being, yes. A being is always a convention, never an ultimate reality.un8- wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:30 pmDoes that mean you believe the Buddha was still a being at the time of that conversation?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:40 amAs provided above, the Mahavihāravāsin analysis is that of the answers being in the future tense. This chimes well with other suttas, where freedom from all dukkha is only at the end of life (for rebirth has stopped). Two parallels were given. The first is likely of Mahāsāṃghika origin, the other from the Sarvāstivāda. The Mahāsāṃghika tended to favour a more transcendental Buddha, which would help to explain their version of this sutta. The Sarvāstivādins, as far as I'm aware, did not however given that Theravāda is well known for it's near obsession with textual analysis and precision, the Theravādin sutta comes out as the most favourable one. Combined with the commentary, this exchange likely referred to future lives.
Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
“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: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Hmm, I wonder why a stranger who saw unusual footsteps and followed them to a being, would ask that being what he will be in a future life, rather than what he is right now, doesn't make sense to me.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:33 pmConventionally he was a human being, yes. A being is always a convention, never an ultimate reality.un8- wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:30 pmDoes that mean you believe the Buddha was still a being at the time of that conversation?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:40 am
As provided above, the Mahavihāravāsin analysis is that of the answers being in the future tense. This chimes well with other suttas, where freedom from all dukkha is only at the end of life (for rebirth has stopped). Two parallels were given. The first is likely of Mahāsāṃghika origin, the other from the Sarvāstivāda. The Mahāsāṃghika tended to favour a more transcendental Buddha, which would help to explain their version of this sutta. The Sarvāstivādins, as far as I'm aware, did not however given that Theravāda is well known for it's near obsession with textual analysis and precision, the Theravādin sutta comes out as the most favourable one. Combined with the commentary, this exchange likely referred to future lives.
And how would the Buddha know to respond conventionally or ultimately? Seems like a source of constant confusion for the listeners, the readers, etc..
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Many people back then believed in rebirth, and many ascetics were seeking escape from it.
Because he knew their level of understanding. Sometimes the Buddha talked according to convention, other times according to ultimate reality.And how would the Buddha know to respond conventionally or ultimately? Seems like a source of constant confusion for the listeners, the readers, etc..
“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: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Sure, but if I saw unusual footsteps I'd wonder what that person is before asking them what they will be, seems like a more logical step between not knowing what something is and what it will be.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:41 pmMany people back then believed in rebirth, and many ascetics were seeking escape from it.
Because he knew their level of understanding. Sometimes the Buddha talked according to convention, other times according to ultimate reality.And how would the Buddha know to respond conventionally or ultimately? Seems like a source of constant confusion for the listeners, the readers, etc..
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Assuming this refers to the 32 Signs of a Great Man, as an Ancient Indian living within a certain culture you might think that said person has liberated themselves.
“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: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
No, there are many witnesses to the contrary.
Aha, whenever it suits you you favor the Chinese versions, and whenever it doesn't the Pāli works quite well for your own speculative teaching.the Theravādin sutta comes out as the most favourable one.
Not more than other movements.
It is more likely, that the commentary is confused, because the phrase that starts the conversation is in grammatical future tense, but it is unequivocally about what is right now before Doṇa's eyes, what he sees at that very moment. It is very likely, actually, almost 100%, that this initial clause sets the grammatical mood for the whole sutta: polite future for the present tense:Combined with the commentary, this exchange likely referred to future lives.
“It is astounding and amazing! These surely could not be the footprints of a human being!” (ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi tr.) (literally: "these will not be the footrpints")
"acchariyaṃ vata bho. Abbhutaṃ vata bho na vatimāni manussabhūtassa pādāni bhavissanti" ti.
The rest of the sutta simply uses the same mood for all verbs in the exchange.
M. Allon edited and studied the Gāndhārī version of the sūtra, along with the three (not two) Chinese, and as well Sanskrit parallels in the "Three Gāndhārī Ekottarikāgama-type Sūtras: British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments 12 and 14" (2001), and, although it also has the grammatical future, he concludes:
"Despite this, given the Buddha's appearance and the presence of wheel-marks on his footprints, it does seem more natural for the brahman to be asking about the Buddha's present status. This interpretation is, in fact, the more likely one in light of several parallels in other Buddhist texts and in the Mahābhārata (MBh)..." and ff.
https://books.google.de/books?id=UoV5Dz ... a&pg=PA172
Last edited by sphairos on Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
How true are your ways?
-
- Posts: 10171
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
In SN 5.10, a "being" is a convention. So a "being" is the name we give to a collection of aggregates making up a living creature, in the same way that "chariot" is the name we give to a particular collection of inanimate parts.
This doesn't mean that "beings" and "chariots" don't exist. It means they don't exist in the way we assume them to.
DO describes "beings" being born, ie collections of aggregates being (physically) born. Those same "beings" then (physically) age and die. That's how it's described in SN12.2.
This doesn't mean that "beings" and "chariots" don't exist. It means they don't exist in the way we assume them to.
DO describes "beings" being born, ie collections of aggregates being (physically) born. Those same "beings" then (physically) age and die. That's how it's described in SN12.2.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
Interesting, that's 3 scholars now that agree it means the present and not future lives.sphairos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:56 pm
"Despite this, given the Buddha's appearance and the presence of wheel-marks on his footprints, it does seem more natural for the brahman to be asking about the Buddha's present status. This interpretation is, in fact, the more likely one in light of several parallels in other Buddhist texts and in the Mahābhārata (MBh)..." and ff.
https://books.google.de/books?id=UoV5Dz ... a&pg=PA172
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
The Buddha and Arahants still experienced pain, which is dukkha. They also still experienced conditioned dhammas, which are themselves dukkha.
Not really. The parallels can sometimes help to clarify a sutta, but I've said the pali suttas are to be preferred.Aha, whenever it suits you you favor the Chinese versions, and whenever it doesn't the Pāli works quite well for your own speculative teaching.
I agree with Ven. Sujato's proposal here.Not more than other movements.
Sects & Sectarianism by Ven. SujatoThe recent manuscript finds from Gandhāra give us a new source of Dharmaguptaka texts, and a new insight into how they developed. According to Richard Salomon, the existing texts, which are in a very bad state of decay, date from shortly after the Common Era, that is, the beginning of the middle period of Indian Buddhism. They lack the textual uniformity we have come to expect from the Pali, and thus Salomon suggests they stem from a time when the canon was not yet fully formed. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Dharmaguptakas did not place as much premium as the Mahāvihāravāsins on textual precision: we have seen that the Dīpavaṁsa ascribes the root schism to bad textuality, and the prominence of the paṭisambhidās in their root-treatise the Paṭisambhidāmagga confirms the centrality of textual analysis for this school. Indeed, the Mahāvihāravāsins, so far as we know, are the only school to produce a complete body of commentaries on the canonical texts. Perhaps we should regard them as the textual exegesis school par excellence.
Even starting with "These surely could not be the footprints of a human being!” there is no commitment on the Master to then reply in the present moment. As to the rest, I've already answered that in my previous post.It is more likely, that the commentary is confused, because the phrase that starts conversation is in grammatical future tense (in this case , but it is unequivocally about what is right now before Doṇa's eyes, what he sees at that very moment. It very likely, actually, almost 100%, that this initial clause sets the grammatical mood for the whole sutta: polite future for the present tense:
“It is astounding and amazing! These surely could not be the footprints of a human being!” (ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi tr.) (literally: "these will not be the footrpints")
"acchariyaṃ vata bho. Abbhutaṃ vata bho na vatimāni manussabhūtassa pādāni bhavissanti" ti.
The rest of the sutta simply uses the same mood for all verbs.
M. Allon edited and studied the Gāndhārī version of the sūtra, along with the three (not two) Chinese and Sanskrit parallels:
"Despite this, given the Buddha's appearance and the presence of wheel-marks on his footprints, it does seem more natural for the brahman to be asking about the Buddha's present status. This interpretation is, in fact, the more likely one in light of several parallels in other Buddhist texts and in the Mahābhārata (MBh)..." and ff.
“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: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
As well in the Gāndhāri version to the last question in the grammatical future the Buddha answers in the grammatical present:
ku re bhu bhaviśasi
"Who, then, venerable sir, would you be?"
The Buddha answers:
Budho mi bramaṇa budho mi
"Brahman, I am the Enlightened One. I am the Enlightened One".
pp. 176-177. M. Allon. Three Gāndhārī Ekottarikāgama-type Sūtras (2001)/
ku re bhu bhaviśasi
"Who, then, venerable sir, would you be?"
The Buddha answers:
Budho mi bramaṇa budho mi
"Brahman, I am the Enlightened One. I am the Enlightened One".
pp. 176-177. M. Allon. Three Gāndhārī Ekottarikāgama-type Sūtras (2001)/
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
How true are your ways?
-
- Posts: 10171
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
No, it's only according to a single sutta in the Saṃyutta. It is not an ultimate teaching. This teaching was given to someone who needed to hear it.
But you don't have the grounds to agree or disagree: you don't know the material, you just heard something and read four sentences about it. I work with the Gāndhārī texts on the daily basis and neither myself, nor anyone working with them professionally would subscribe to the extravagant personal opinion of ven. Sujato.Not more than other movements.
I agree with Ven. Sujato's proposal here.
Even starting with "These surely could not be the footprints of a human being!” there is no commitment on the Master to then reply in the present moment. As to the rest, I've already answered that in my previous post.
You simply need to get better at the language, it's outside your competence.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
How true are your ways?
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
The Buddha still experienced conditioned dhammas, which the Buddha constantly said were dukkha due to their impermanence. He also said that pain itself is dukkha.
I have much ground to disagree as you do. I also doubt that you are this academic that you paint yourself to be, giving your rather dismal "interpretations" pressed so far of Buddhism but also religion and philosophy in general. You certainly don't conduct yourself in a professional manner.But you don't have the grounds to agree or disagree: you don't know the material, you just heard something and read four sentences about it. I work with the Gāndhārī texts on the daily basis and neither myself, nor anyone working with them professionally would subscribe to the extravagant personal opinion of ven. Sujato.
“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: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
"Conditioned dhammas" are Ok, you still get liberation in this very life and become "untraceable".The Buddha still experienced conditioned dhammas,
No, you don't.I have much ground to disagree as you do.
In the spirit of Buddhist teaching on not-self, I don't provide you with my credentials, so that you wouldn't be even more attached to the views, proliferation and fantacizing, than you are now. I am entitled to behaving myself as a free human, despite your anticipations.
***
Another strong argument in favor of the present tense is the last line of the verse in Pāli:
Doṇa questions in the grammatical future:
What, then, could you be, sir?”
Atha ko carahi bhavaṃ bhavissatīti.
And the Buddha answers in the grammatical present in the last line of the verse:
therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.”
tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇāti
So , it is about who the Buddha is, not who he will be.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
How true are your ways?
Re: Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???
He would then still experience the unsatisfactoriness of life, and of course still experience the intrinsic dukkha of pain. This is understandable, since dependent origination is not psychological or some strange Phenomenological construct but is rather temporal. That is to say, spanning lives.
I doubt you have them in the first place, and even if you do I still wouldn't consider you to be an Academic worth listening to based on our past interactions.In the spirit of Buddhist teaching on not-self, I don't provide you with my credentials, so that you wouldn't be even more attached to the views, proliferation and fantacizing, than you are now. I am entitled to behaving myself as a free human, contrary to your anticipations.
This is still rather weak for what you are trying to argue.Another strong argument in favor of the present tense is the last line of the verse in Pāli:
Doṇa questions in the grammatical future:
What, then, could you be, sir?”
Atha ko carahi bhavaṃ bhavissatīti.
And the Buddha answers in the grammatical present in the last line of the verse:
therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.”
tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇāti
So , it is about who the Buddha is, not who he will be.
“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.”