Re: Cambodian Lectures by Kh. Sujin.
- Dear Htoo, Swee, Nina, all,
You included my name in your address, perhaps because we discussed
> I agree with Swee Boon.Sukinder:
> If one can follow what has been instructed in satipatthaana sutta the
> fruit will be one of 2 alternatives that is arahat or non-returner.
> This is possible in 7 days and maximum is 7 years.
> If not attain, then there is something wrong with followers. That is
> they do not follow the Path exactly.
I too believe that depending on the level of practice and other
conditions, pativedha can arise in 7 years, 7 months, 7 days, 7 minutes
or even 7 seconds. But are we in agreement? I don't think so, because I
do not agree at all with Swee Boon's points. You say that you do, which
would include the following statements:
> The Buddha did not teach us to develop panna over numerouseven
> lifetimes.He absolutely did not!
> He wanted us to develop liberating panna in this life here and now,
> and he never said anything about so-called past accumulations or
> whatever nonsense/excuses that is often quoted.
> He said that ANYONE who practises the way he taught, yes ANYONE,
> those without any "accumulations" at all, would attain non-return orSukinder:
> unbinding here and now!
Do you agree with the part about "past accumulations"? If so, the
obvious question is, what about the distinction between ti-hetuka and
dvi-hetuka individuals? But this is just a `theoretical' point; let us try to
be more concrete ;-).
Do you agree that by pakatupanissaya paccaya, the probability of
satipatthana arising is extremely low if not almost nil for the average
person, like me, ;-)? And this is after hearing much Dhamma with
perhaps a good many moments of pariyatti level of sati? Do you think
that what is in fact needed for patipatti to arise often enough to
condition actualization of the above estimates, is any *deliberate
watchfulness*? What paccaya would you put this in?
It was interesting for me to read your series on the "akusala dhammas",
the `latent tendencies' and so on, and to note particularly the tendency
to silabattaparamasa. You will agree that this is very strong in us
putthujanas and can be conditioned to arise so easily with any hint of
something being offered as a `method' for liberation. I think this is why
it is connected with sakaya ditthi, for as long as there is self view, one is
always seeking a method.
So Htoo, should what is taught in the Satipatthana Sutta be seen as
a "method", especially by us who have some knowledge of the
Abhidhamma? The Buddha's audience who *could* achieve the goal in
7 years and so on, had to be able to recognize self-view when it arose
and know it when their practice becomes `rite and ritual'. Can you Htoo,
sincerely state that you are able to catch `self-view' when it arises? And
do you accept that the very idea of having a `programmed activity' i.e.
time and place for formal practice, is the stuff of which rite and ritual is
You have given extreme examples such as `behaving as dogs' and so on
as silabattaparamasa, what do you see as the essential difference in
this regard, between this and the idea of setting a special time and
place for formal meditation?
Another point, Swee Boon says:
""He wanted us to develop liberating panna in this life here and now,
and he never said anything about so-called past accumulations or
whatever nonsense/excuses that is often quoted.""
Do you also see some of us referring to `past accumulations' as
nonsense/excuses? If so, would it be a kind of wrong view on our part?
What is it? Do you think as Swee thinks, that "the Buddha wanted us to
develop liberating panna in this life here and now"? And do you believe
that hearing *one* Buddha is enough for achieving enlightenment? Is
the path so easy!!!?
Coming back to your own statement, you said:
""If not attain, then there is something wrong with followers. That is
they do not follow the Path exactly.""
Here there seem to be a hint of "self view". I agree that if all the
conditions are in place, then the goal will be reached and if not, then it
won't. Putting it differently I would state that if the goal is reached, then
it is because of conditions and if it hasn't been, then this too would be
because of conditions. However there is absolutely no one to point the
I think it is very useful to understand and keep in mind pakatupanissaya
paccaya. Even now what we see or think about can condition either
akusala or kusala. For me I know that it is almost perpetually the
former, so I don't think that were there to arise sincere intention
associated with the idea of `formal practice' that it would be any
different. Thinking oneself to be a Buddhist or that one is following the
Buddha's teachings and repeatedly telling oneself that one must
practice, does not mean that the right path will be taken. Conditions
rule, in particular the `accumulations' ;-) and not what we tell ourselves
about "our practice".
ps: I agree with you on the point about the Buddha not having another's
citta as object but his own, and that it would be real time. ;-)
- Hi Sarah,
> S: No, anything is possible. But look at someone like Devadatta,Sarah, if you say anything is possible, then anything is possible.
> destined for the worst rebirth because of the akusala kamma, but
> later destined to become a pacceka Buddha because of previous good
> accumulations. Conditions are very complicated, aren't they?
To me, "anything is possible" is an impossibility.
> S: Right, no conditions for bhavana (well, highly unlike, but someMay be 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance.
> extraordinary cases in the peta stories), but when conditions
> change and there is rebirth in a better realm, then on hearing the
> dhamma, even a little, there may be conditions again for keen
> interest, wouldn't you say?
May be I will meet you in the heavenly realms.