Hi again Apeiron
yes
No, I disagree. I believe they are necessary. For me, the first and second of the Tevijjā directly link to (or equate with) the First Noble Truth. I don’t believe this text (the Tevijjā in the Enlightenment story) is corrupted and the Buddha supposedly said he taught only what was necessary. Right?
I supply the link again, as this is a new discussion point:
I certainly agree and interesting that it is put into the mouth of a bhikkhuni (Dhammadinna), is just another unjust blow to women practitioners and seems typical of the Brahmin position: keep the other castes in their lower positions along with women! I certainly wonder if that was done along the lines of the prediction that women’s ordination would bring the Dhamma to an early end. The tradition provided some ‘evidence’ for those who look deeper, that is, tried to make Bhikkhunis blameworthy.
Yes.
Another thing Dr Bucknell didn’t seem to point out in that paper, probably due to its limited scope, is that even though we call the three ‘trainings’, the tradition does not seem to clearly teach actual practices to develop wisdom (paññā). He develops a theory on what those practices could be (e.g. following trains of thought), which I think is accepted by some followers of the Thai Forest Tradition, which I don’t accept.
When I went to Wat Pah Nanachart during my first ordination, there I met Bh. Sumedho and Bh. Jāgaro and Sumedho asked if I could follow the trains of thought with equanimity, three times! That is what Dr Bucknell equates with the third super knowledge, from memory. So for me, this is teaching equanimity, interpreted as letting go, as Nibbāna, which I don’t accept. Equanimity is a stepping stone for me.
best wishes