THat was such an amazing movie. Even more amazing was how the relationship between these two actors ended in suffering.
I am reading the translation, which does not use sallekha. Therefore my experience of the sutta is different than yours. Whatever I have read has proved of value to me in simplifying my life. I cannot make any scholarly claim as to accuracy or legitimacy. I am an engineer who accepts advice that works. I see that your understanding of sallekha is consistent and plausible. Yet I cannot apply it in any useful way to my own practice. Note that we both agree about the importance of jhana. Where we disagree is that you say jhana is enough and I say jhana is not enough. I say that jhana, like any other tool has to be used mindfully for best results.
Now it is possible for you to dismiss my experience and say that I know nothing of jhana or practice. Perhaps you are right. Yet that dismissal doesn’t help me improve my life. The translated suttas have been enormously helpful to me.
1 Like
That’s great that your reading has proved valuable for you. But regarding view, I don’t think it will do you any favours to believe you have received the definitive meaning of the Pāli term sallekha by reading a teaching which makes no mention whatsoever of sallekha. That approach doesn’t seem logical.
If you believe I have at any time ever said that that is my view, then please do quote me. But I cannot ever imagine saying such a thing.
I have never met anyone who has ever claimed otherwise. Right mindfulness is the seventh step on the jhāna path after all!
I don’t think there’s any need to defend against hypothetical dismissal. I don’t tend to overly dismiss people’s experience. I hope that my tone did not come across as such.
1 Like
Oh. I have misunderstood! Now I am quite confused about what we are disagreeing on.
Note that I also agree with you on the following:
But regarding view, I don’t think it will do you any favours to believe you have received the definitive meaning of the Pāli term sallekha by reading a teaching which makes no mention whatsoever of sallekha . That approach doesn’t seem logical.
My approach is to use intuition and logic in parallel to double-check each other. I mistrust any approach that relies on just intuition or logic.
If I might summarize, perhaps we are both uncertain on exactly how to interpret sallekha. I agree with the uncertainty. I have found a workable yet admittedly tenuous understanding of sallekha. I am not particularly attached to that interpretation and would happily swap it out for a better and actionable understanding. Perhaps we both need to wait for others to shed light on this.
Beyond what we have discussed above, I don’t know what to say. But you’re welcome to ask any specific questions if you like. I’ll try to answer if I can.
Now that you can logically see that you have gained your definition of sallekha from a sutta which makes no mention of nor reference to sallekha, what consequence does this have for your double-checking process?
Sure. I only just started looking into it from this conversation. That’s why I’m open to seeing definitions the Buddha might have given, but so far it seems that we have none. So I’ve been working on what evidence we do have, and in that process also eliminate arguments that are not based on evidence - that’s my process. Would be interested to hear from anyone else who’s looked into this in depth.
1 Like
You don’t miss a thing do you?
When logic is inconclusive, I trust intuition. In the mountains, this can be the difference between life and death. I do prefer it when both agree, it is much better than intuition alone.
1 Like
Right. So in this case logic has proven to be conclusive that that sutta is not a valid source for gaining any understanding of the term sallekha. That was my point.
Definitely both are important. But it’s good to hone them both, and let the benefits of both permeate us, and especially the logical evidence-based method when it comes to understanding what the Buddha meant by certain terms, through close examination of the actual evidence we have of his teachings, in the early texts.
You have just concluded that MN8 is useless in and of itself and that the Buddha’s exhortation to Cunda on sallekha may be useless.
That is a rather odd conclusion and one that I do not agree with. When I said “tenuous”, I meant that I do not have the background in Pali nor do I have the interest sufficient to investigate the “true” meaning of sallekha to satisfy you. I have faith in Bhante Sujato’s translation, given his status and exemplary scholarship.
I therefore find it logical to have faith in the translation and have verified its truth personally.
My concern about rejecting MN8 as not a valid source for gaining any understanding of the term sallekha is that one might meditate in bliss thinking it effective at ending the defilements in this very life. For those on the path of non-return, understanding and applying MN8 would be significant and important. For those content with stream-entry the understanding of MN8 could certainly be deferred to a later one of up to seven lives.
Please do quote me where I ever made such a claim. I believe you will be entirely unable.
The quote of mine above is regarding DN 33, which you gave as your specific source for the Buddha’s definition of sallekha. Although that sutta makes no mention of sallekha. And I never called either sutta ‘useless’.
1 Like
I think in this we have both stumbled on the danger of pronouns.
I thought I had made it rather clear by summarixing the exchange so that the thread and steps of logic were totally apparent:
Ok anyway, we don’t seem to be getting further with the sutta nor the word, so I may get back to my studies… It was an interesting conversation.
I should provide some background that explains my clumsiness.
I am going blind.
Because I am going blind, I have lost the ability to see and grasp large chunks of text all at once. For me the world has shrunk to a few lines of text at a time. For example, I cannot see all that you have posted all at once. It is simply too much to see and I can only see little.
I do a lot better with small concise self-contained statements. For example, this post is ALL that I can see on a screen.
Ah ok fair enough. It’s awesome that you still can read, so many teachings from which to gain inspiration from!
If I had misunderstood that you had gained yoru understanding of the definition of sallekha from DN 33, do let me know, and if you did have a definition, welcome to post it with the source. Otherwise perhaps some time in the future we will receive notifications from this post when someone comes up with more light on the topic. I found the Jain angle interesting and would love to hear more about that if it comes to light.
1 Like
Thank you for being gentle with my clumsiness.
My understanding of sallekha is really only based on my faith in Bhante Sujato’s translation of MN8. I have a working hypothesis that Self Effacement (MN8) is required for the End of Defilements (DN33) via the relinquishing of the five grasping aggregates that constitute Identity View (MN44).
I do not have your skill in Pali to defend the above. It is simply what I have gleaned from Bhante Sujato’s translations in helping my own practice. His scholarship so exceeds my own that I find it logical for me to have faith in his translations.
I am curious about the Jain hypothesis as well. DN33 starts with a harsh reflection on the Jain. Therefore, like you, I shall await other voices.
1 Like
The ‘definition’ will be driven by the context, in which it is found. What we know about jhana is that it’s an integeral part of noble eightfold path but EBTs doesn’t hold jhana in the role of removing defilements… anywhere at all.
Removal of defilements falls under Right effort. See Vitakkasanta sutta. Salla might have have the meaning of scalpel or sharp blade, to cut away the ‘fat’.
Are you sure of this?
The vision and insight which results in destruction of the taints is across many suttas described as being brought about by absorption (jhana). See MN11, AN9.34, AN9.38, AN9.39, AN9.40, AN9.44, and AN9.47.
In the topic below we discussed that:
1 Like
As I said, jhanas don’t destroy taints. Jhana leads to wisdom. Wisdom is the quality that destroys defilements.
2 Likes
The role of removing defilement doesn’t belong to anyone or any specific part of the process, factor of the path or boddhipakkhya dhamma .
It is like cooking rice.
Having either heat, water, time, and a pot separately does not give you cooked rice. It is the combination of those things that does.
2 Likes
"And what, monks, is right effort?
[ i ] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.[ ii ] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[ iii ] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ iv ] “He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.”
— SN 45.8
Right effort: Right Effort: samma vayamo
The wisdom of a mind purified by jhāna, destroys taints. Right?
Talking about wisdom destroying taints as if that wisdom is separate from jhāna training would be odd.