Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep
- Dear Partner Sarah,
My stance on this issue is based on the two paragraphs of
DN 16, and not on any other passage from the vast Tipitaka.
I repeat my stance again.
5.13. And the Venerable Aananda went into his lodging and
stood lamenting, leaning on the door-post: 'Alas,
I am still a learner with much to do! And the Teacher is passing away, who was
so compassionate to me!'
207. Atha kho aayasmaa aanando vihaara.m pavisitvaa
kapisiisa.m aalambitvaa rodamaano a.t.thaasi "aha~nca vatamhi sekho
sakara.niiyo, satthu ca me parinibbaana.m bhavissati, yo mama
6.1. And the Lord said to Aananda: 'Aananda,
it may be that you will think: "The
Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have
no teacher!" It should not be seen like
this, Aananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and
discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.'
216. Atha kho bhagavaa aayasmanta.m aananda.m aamantesi "siyaa kho panaananda, tumhaaka.m evamassa 'atiitasatthuka.m paavacana.m, natthi no satthaa'ti.
Na kho paneta.m, aananda, eva.m da.t.thabba.m. Yo vo, aananda, mayaa dhammo ca
vinayo ca desito pa~n~natto, so vo mamaccayenasatthaa."
Han: From the above two paragraphs, it is very clear to me that
Venerable Aananda was lamenting not just due to his attachment to the Lord, but
he was lamenting for the impending loss of a Teacher who would guide him as he
was only a learner; and the Buddha had to warn him that after his passing his
Dhamma and discipline would be their Teacher. So Venerable Aananda saw the
Tathaagata as a Tathaagata. To confirm this, in paragraph 5.13 Venerable
Aananda called the Buddha as "My Teacher" [satthu ca me]. I do not read anything in the
above two paragraphs to suggest that Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a heap
I am sorry to repeat my stance again.
But I want to make it clear that I am not making a general
statement, but a specific case of
Venerable Aananda with regard to the two paragraphs of DN 16.
with metta and deepest respect,
Your Partner Han
From: sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep
Dear Partner Han,
--- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, han tun <hantun1@...> wrote:
> Han: What I said was for Venerable Aananda the Tathaagata
> existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas."
S: I think that all ariyan disciples, even sotapannas understand that only khandhas arise and fall away and that there are no other realities at all, apart from the unconditioned dhamma, nibbanna. As discussed before, we need to consider the Teachings as a whole.
SN22: 37 Ananda (Bodhi transl):
The Buddha asks Ananda:
" 'If, Aananda, they were to ask you: 'Friend Aananda, what are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned? (uppaada, vaya, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)' - being asked thus, how would you answer?'
" ' Venerable sir, if they were to ask me this, I would answer thus: 'Friends, with form an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. With feeling....perception....volitional formations...consciousness........ These friends, are the things of which an arising is discerned..................'.....
"' Good, good, Aananda! With form.....feeling....perception.. volitional formations...consciousness......Being asked thus, Aananda, you should answer in such a way.' "
In case there is any suggestion that Ananda is just repeating what he has heard, we read in the following that he knows exactly what is right and what are ditthi (wrong views):
AN V:96 Kokanada (Bodhi transl):
" 'The world is eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong,' friend: this is a speculative view. The world is not eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view. 'The world is finite'....'The world is infinite'....'The soul and the body are the same'....'The soul is one thing, the body another'....'The Tathaagata exists after death'....'The Tathaagata does not exist after death'....'The Tatthaagata both exists and does not exist after death'....'The Tathaagata neither exists nor does not exist after death; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view.
" 'To the extent, friend, that there is a speculative view, a basis for views, a foundation for views (di.t.thi.t.thaana), obsession with views, the origination of views, and the uprooting of views, I know and see this. When I know and see this, why should I say: 'I do not know and see.' I know, friend, I see."
S: These are just the same (wrong) views referred to in SN 41:3 Isidatta (2) (Bodhi transl).
We read that these views are all come about as a result of sakkaaya-di.t.thi:
" 'As to the various views that arise in the world, householder, 'The world is eternal'....- these as well as the sixty-two speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajaala: when there is identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity view, these views do not come to be."
S: We then read about how the uninstructed worldling "regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form" and so on for the other khandhas.The noble disciple, on the other hand, does not regard them in this way.
Metta & resppect
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Rob E
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
> Hi Jon.
> RE: So anyway, that's what it's about, but I can use some help understanding what the terms of the discussion mean, which don't quite add up for me.
J: I haven't gone into the terms of the discussion between the Buddha and Upaali, because that discussion has no bearing on the gradual teaching given by the Buddha.
As you'll recall, the gradual teaching began after the discussion had concluded and Upaali had professed himself to be a follower of the Buddha. Here's the link to the sutta again:
(Discussions involving followers of other teachings can be difficult to follow because they assume a detailed knowledge of the other teaching and its particular vocabulary and terms of dialogue/debate.)
> RE: As for those of highly developed panna not needing to practice and getting enlightened from a short word from the Buddha, that doesn't surprise me so much, given two important factors:
> 1. The accumulation of panna in former lives.
> 2. The BUDDHA being the one giving the short talk.
J: Yes, both factors are important, although the former (previously accumulated panna) is indispensable, whereas the latter (hearing the teachings from the Buddha in person) is not: there are examples in the texts of people becoming enlightened after hearing a short piece of the Dhamma from a person other than the Buddha.
> RE: I don't think anyone can overemphasize the influence of these two highly unusual factors, in the absence of which it may be necessary to do a lot of regular meditation to develop the missing panna.
J: So as you understand the teachings, any "missing panna" can be made up for by "doing a lot of regular meditation"? If only it were that easy! Wishful thinking, I'm afraid!
To get back to the point in issue, those such as Upaali who received the gradual teaching became enlightened (a) on the basis of considering and understanding by direct experience, there and then, the meaning of words being spoken by the Buddha, and (b) without there being any suggestion of past attainment of jhana or indeed any particular `practice' of samatha.
> RE: The fact that so many of these highly developed monks at the time of the Buddha spent a large part of their day sitting cross-legged in a quiet place to develop samatha and vipassana says a lot in favor of such "meditation," or whatever one would like to call it.
J: Given that, at the time of the Buddha, there were "highly developed" monks who were able, while sitting cross-legged in a quiet place, to develop samatha and vipassana, the question to then consider is what cause lead to what result.
It cannot simply be assumed that this says a lot in favour of seated meditation(!).
To my understanding, such monks must have developed both samatha and panna to a high degree in previous lives.
As regards the possible significance of their sitting cross-legged in a quiet place, while a quiet place is one of the (many) conditions for the development of samatha *at its higher levels* (i.e., jhana), it is not among the conditions for the development of awareness/insight.