RE: Please don't....
- Hi Sukin,
When you say: "Good to be discussing with you." I say, "Right back at
> However I see that I am having to speculate a lot here. So I wouldlike to
> leave it to your own judgement, whether or not we should drop this,for now
> at least. Besides I feel uncomfortable at the thought that I amburdening
> you and others with my long posts, to read them, more so to respond.O, Sukin! You needn't worry about me or others here. We are entirely
free to read and/or respond as we wish.
> Comments interspersed...enlightenment.
> Suk:> Not know destination, but *must* have heard about the path.
> This time let us consider the Buddha himself.
> You are saying that the Mundane Path arose in him prior to
> No satipatthana was involved...for 6
> Furthermore, he went straight and got involved in "wrong practices"
> years. I doubt he would have been driven to go through all that hadWouldn't anyone who has not shattered the fetter of silabbataparamasa
> satipatthana arisen in between.
be susceptible to "wrong practices"? Aren't "wrong practices" bound
to be a part of our repertoire until sotapattimagga? Satipatthana
must develop for a long, long time before there is immunity to "wrong
practices," and dedication to "wrong practices" should not be used to
conclude "No satipatthana for this person!"
>Sukin: Dan, I understand you to be saying that those outside of thesasana who saw
> through the 'self' to the extent that they have, that this wasbecause of
> the experience of satipatthana. However, they did not insight orunderstand
> the 'satipatthana' itself to know the causes and conditions for itsarising.
The depth of the understanding was not sufficient to know in detail
the causes and conditions. The depth of understanding was only deep
enough to realize that the understanding was not caused or
conditioned by the Self. In fact, just the opposite. Only when the
Self (or the dedication to "Self" or the idea of Self) retreats can
the understanding arise.
> Dan: I don't think it makes any sense to say satipatthana is a muchhigher
> level of panya than conceptual understanding (based on hearing,one who
> reading, or cogitating). Satipatthana and conceptual knowing are
> completely different modes of knowing. ...
> Sukin:> I don't think so. Obviously there is a difference between
> understands and accepts the Dhamma in principle and one whodoesn't,
Yes, in the world of concepts there is a difference. One calls
himself "Buddhist". The other does not. But the label that one gives
himself tells nothing about his level of understanding.
> Sukin:...between who understands correctly and one who does sowrongly. Or do you
> think that it is a matter of the way it is 'thought about', perhapsthe
> ability to think logically about the subject?I do think that what you are saying is that the differences in the
way people conceptualize their understanding ("one who...accepts the
Dhamma in principle and one who doesn't") are very important. I am
discounting stories and concept more than you'd like while
emphasizing understanding. I'm saying that the stories are only
stories; the realities that are understood are an entirely different
> At this very moment there are dhammas arising and falling away andobviously
> there is no satipatthana arisen. However there can be anacknowledgement of
> the fact of present moment dhammas, including that there *is nosati*.
> Besides with this, there can also be some acknowledgement of thefact of
> conditionality and anatta. And surely, this would be onlyintellectual, but
> is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it a 'level' of understanding? Ithink it
> is.If there is no understanding of "anatta" or "conditionality"
or "sati" or "satipatthana" really are, then I'd say that the
intellectualizing is mere speculation and is not "understanding".
> Dan:for most
> And according to such a model, it would appear that genuine insight
> springs from the thoroughly conventional practice of conceptual
> speculation about doctrine.
> S:> I would say that "thinking about and speculation" is inevitable
> of us, and this may not even always be bad. But yes, speculation ismost
> definitely *not* the precursor to insight. But neither is 'thinkingabout' a
> hindrance. :-)Right. Whether our "thinking about" is "bad" or not has nothing to do
with how often we do it or how much ability we have to
abstain. "Thinking about" may either be bad or good depending on
whether there is lobha or dosa or moha at a particular moment. Ditto
for "speculation", although "speculation" is more likely to be a
detriment because there are such strong tendencies for lobha ("I want
to figure this out, to really grasp it") and moha ("This is the way
it is. My description is reality. Your description is wrong view.").
> Pariyatti (also suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna) is referenceto a level
> of understanding got from hearing, and so by necessityhas "concepts" as
> object. It appears that according to you, there is no panna of thislevel at
> all. Are you saying that panna (of vipassana) starts withsatipatthana? Is
> there no basic level than this?I still don't know what pariyatti, sutamayapanya, and cintamayapanya
are. But, the definitions of "panya" shift, depending on context.
When I talk about "understanding" it is usually as panya cetasika as
samma-ditthi of the path (mundane unless otherwise noted). And that
[I think a useful thread for me would be one on the notions of
pariyatti, sutamayapanya, and cintamayapanya. Perhaps in a few months
when I may pop in for another thread or two...]
> But just as the notion that genuine insight arises from the
> conventional practice of formal meditation is a fetter to be brokenthoroughly
> (silabbataparamasa), the notion that insight arises from the
> conventional practice of conceptual speculation about doctrine isalso a
> fetter to be broken (ditthi).lists of
> S:> I don't think it is about acquiring more knowledge in terms of
> concepts and any ability to think logically about them. But theopportunity
> for the level of panna to arise and accumulate from "considering"the Dhamma
> from whatever angle it has been presented, without expectations. Inother
> words panna will never say "no" to hearing and reading dhammawhenever the
> opportunity arises. But I understand that most of the objectioncomes from
> translating the above as the 'need to acquire more extensiveknowledge of
> ideas'. This latter would be a case of holding the snake by thewrong end,
> imo.I think we are in agreement here. The difference might be that I
think that "pure" concepts that are far beyond our understanding are
not particularly useful--nor particularly "pure" for that matter.
> How would you describe the difference between ditthi and samma-
> S:> One is wrong understanding of the way things are, the other is
It's tough to argue with that!
But "right" in what sense? And "wrong" in what sense? Wrong concept
or wrong view? [The two are different...]
> > What would have stopped any "right" concepts from issuingforth...?
Concepts are non-existent and do not arise. Dhammically speaking,
there are no "right" concepts because the concepts are not the
understanding. Only the understanding is the understanding; any
description of reality or understanding has flaws. Confusing the
concept with the understanding is called "ditthi", a fetter to be
> I agree that this conceptualization of the understanding must be
> relinquished if enlightenment is to be achieved, but the diminution
> in the attachment to "Self" (ditthi) is real and beneficial--beyond
> what any purely conceptual understanding of anatta might bring,
> whether outside the dispensation or not. The measure of
> is the degree of detachment from Self, not skill in intellectualtaught
> S:> Your line of reasoning could lead to the belief that the Buddha
> about all being only khandha, dhatu, nama/rupa, is just one ofseveral ways
> of getting the point across, and that he might just as well havetaught an
> imaginary "cause", God at the beginning.No. Not at all. What distinguishes Buddha's teaching is that it
reflects an enlightened understanding. But Buddha's teaching model
did include lots about devas and titans and Brahma and divine
messengers. He did so because such concepts are helpful to some
people. Surely there are no devas (or Selves of any kind,
including "You" and "Me"). These are teaching models that point to
certain aspects of reality. Perfect, flawless, correct concepts? No,
of course not. But none are. Not devas, bhikkhus, and precepts; not
dhammas, dhatus, and ayatanas; not God, sinners, and commandments;
not Jesus, Sin, and Gospel.
> Whatever the case may be, it seems unlikely to me, that such a viewabout
> the 'world' could at anytime condition the perception of aparamattha
> dhamma. Impersonality, yes, but not anatta.is
> Having some idea about 'conditions' in relation to one's experience
> possible. But if it is still in terms of 'self', it wouldn't be theconditions
> understanding of paccaya as the Buddha taught. Any appeal to
> would still be in terms of 'self view'......
Any "appeal" is concept and not view. Is there clinging to the
concept? Dosa? Confusing the concept for reality?
> The above said, I must say that it has long been part of my belief,that
> there are folks outside of the sasana, who have betteraccumulations than I
> have, and here I don't mean other forms of kusala which is obvious,but also
> 'right understanding'. Some of them have either simply not got thechance to
> hear the Teachings presented in the correct way, or else because ofattached to
> 'attachment to kusala' they have subsequently grown strongly
> their own religion.to an
> The panna of these people may also manifest as conventional wisdom
> extent more apparent than any that comes from me. And as the Buddhadid with
> the Devine Messengers, these folks would learn much from their owndiscuss
> experiences than I would have without Dhamma.
> And this is why I sometimes think that it might be more fruitful to
> Dhamma with these people, than would it with many so calledBuddhists. Some
> of the latter have made up their minds about the particularinterpretation,
> while those other folks may be more receptive to any correct one. ;-)
>We differ only in our understanding of satipatthana. You prefer to
> But no Dan, no satipatthana possible for them, I think.
link it more strongly to concept and conceptual understanding and
arising from a base of speculative intellectualing first. I think of
it as much more loosely linked to concept. Belief in any particular
concept doesn't help satipatthana arise, but some conceptual models
(those that have approximately the same depth as the person's level
of understanding) help the understanding go just a bit deeper when
satipatthana arises the next time. Conceptual models that are outside
the appropriate depth for a particular person at a particular time
tend to not be helpful. But, that being said, these are only rough
patterns. No rules, no expectations to the arising.
Sukin, I really do appreciate your comments and the opportunity to
discuss and consider these difficult issues in a civil and rational
- Hi Ken O,
--- Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:
> Hi All<....>
> Recently I read in the mail that why should only Buddha's teaching
> can help liberate beings and not others.
> from Numerical Discourses of the Buddhha - Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter
> of the Tens, pg 263, Not Outside the Buddha Discipline
> <<Ten things monk do not have purity and clairty outside the
> Discipline of the Sublime Master. What are the ten?
S: We often select the same texts:-). I referred to this same one in my
recent correspondence with Dan, but if you check back, you'll see his
spirited defence of why he considers it only applies to enlightenment.
(Several posts back and forth).
When he returns, you're most welcome to take it up again with him...