Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon
- Hi Howard
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, upasaka@... wrote:
> Hi, Jon -
> I'm not sure that your understanding of what I meant actually matches it exactly. I think maybe not.
> Let me explain further what I understand the Buddha to be saying in "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. ...":
> I believe that he is saying that among any of the things that might be known by him, he doesn't presume there to be self-existent entities that are known, nor self-existent unknown ones, nor ones "waiting" to be known. In short, he doesn't consider whatever might be an object of consciousness to be anything more than just that; i.e., he doesn't conceive of self-existent entities.
J: I broadly agree that the sutta describes how the Buddha does not presume or conceive of anything that is not directly known.
However, the sutta does not address the question of what it is that may be directly known by a Buddha, i.e., the scope of knowledge/understanding of a Buddha (or the great arahants)..
I'd have thought that knowledge of the arising of ruupas is something that would be well within the scope of a Buddha's knowledge. Is there in your view any reason to suppose otherwise?
> HCW: P. S. An aside: In the above quote from the Bahiya Sutta, I'd be interested in knowing whether "That is how you should train yourself" is a correct translation of the Pali, for the translation urges proactivity; i.e., "doing something".
J: The training being recommended in the Baahiya Sutta is not the *doing of something* but the *keeping in mind* of how things are in truth and reality when seen with developed panna.
From the TB translation of the sutta on ati:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself.
I do not read this passage as an exhortation to the listener to try and see/experience things in a particular way. That would not be panna at work :-)). Rather it is indicating how things are seen/experienced when pa~n~naa has been sufficiently developed.
- Hi Connie,
Helpful notes, Pali and comments in your mini-series. Thank you.
--- In email@example.com, "connie" <nichicon@...> wrote:
> iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m, di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati;
> So, having (1) seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees./666
> 666 ~ Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained."
- hi Sarah, boys,
> Helpful notes, Pali and comments in your mini-series. Thank you.hmm...lol: "Wah wah wah wah."
yes, very good stuff. thanks again, translators and commentaries;
It was this sutta which helped Maharakkhita to convert the country of the Yonakas (Sp.i.67; Mhv.xii.39; Mbv.114; Dpv.viii.9).
The sutta was also preached by Kala Buddharakkhita at the Cetiyapabbata to a concourse of people, among whom King Tissa (probably Saddha-Tissa) was also present. MA.i.470.
> > 666 ~ Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained."