Branching out of the discussion from 3 turning 12 line means what?:
In the above thread I became a little intrigued by the ‘interwoven-ness’ of the development of understanding of the Four Noble Truths (and the aspects of the path more generally), prompting Mat to quite rightly emphasise the the distinct nature of each truth and that they are realised sequentially, although with admirable balance he added:
In my wanders today I came across this:
Now what think ye, my lord gods Thirty-and Three, of the completeness wherewith the Exalted One, who knows, who sees, the Arahant, Buddha Supreme, hath revealed the Seven Requisites of Intellectual Concentration for practice of right Rapture, for the perfecting of Rapture? Which are the Seven? Right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness. That concentration of thought, Sirs, which is prepared by these seven factors, is called the Noble Right Rapture together with its bases, together with its requisites. Right intention suffices to maintain right views, right speech suffices to maintain right intention, right action suffices to maintain right speech, right livelihood suffices to maintain right action, right effort suffices to maintain right livelihood, right mindfulness suffices to maintain right effort, right rapture suffices to maintain right mindfulness, right knowledge suffices to maintain right rapture, right freedom suffices to maintain right knowledge. (DN18)
Now, much as I love the Rhys Davidses, I’d certainly appreciate another translation to compare with. Nevertheless, I think it’s sufficiently clear that this particular passage does suggest quite a sequential procedure.
Of course, thinking in terms of the gradual training, I’ve always happily recognised a clear direction of travel, or sequential progression. At the same time, I guess I’ve tended to conceive of the gradual training as (in a way) a bit different from deepening in proficiency with the path factors. With regards to the eightfold path I’ve hitherto leaned towards a highly (but not entirely) non-linear (or excellently messy) understanding of things. This has essentially been entirely based on how it has felt, and I’ve never seriously looked at the specific point from a textual angle. The above now makes me wonder if it’s time to reconsider. Is the presentation in DN18 the norm of how the text suggest developing the eightfold path?