It means DO. If you can see things as they really are then you are dealing with some type of correspondence theory - realism - because we know we shape stuff - in our head. If it’s all shaped in our head, that’s idealism. We can dispense with that. It’s the domain of yogacara. So, seeing things as they really are … that’s conditioned.
How are you ever going to pick your way out of the briar thicket if you don’t see that? How are you ever going to attain anything if you don’t apply effort to the mental discipline you’re being guided towards and just let your brain run away on itself in your head? Or be pushed around and tortured and tormented. Uh uh uh.
Ya’ll aren’t little enjoyers out there peering through a telescope in the back of your head looking at something that is what it is. Nope. You ain’t.
If by DO you mean completely knowing sanna, yes. And that requires neither perception nor non-perception. Theories/views about DO would have been anathema to the author(s) of the Atthakavagga. Formulating views was strictly condemned in Snp 4.3 and Snp 4.5.
I don’t see how an answer of “bad” amounts to a middle way.
To explain what I mean by bad, I need to take refuge to a simile: Schopenhauers idea of life - or the world - as a will.
That will has no intelligence in the sense of intelligence of mind. But it constantly wills itself and thereby creates the world. We are part of this will, in that the five (or six) Kandhas are the “incarnated” will of that will.
Now the question is, how do we get out, transcend this senseless spiral of will that causes all our suffering and keeps us in a prison.
We cannot commit suicide or fight destructively against it, since then whe are just adding to the will and and the spiral, making it worse, doing just what it wills us to do.
So the only way - the middle way - out, is using our mind to transcend it, just asking for what we really need to survive and else try to keep out of the spiral as good as we can, and avoid being swept away by that meaningless spiral of will.
This is just a similie that I find my mind constantly drawing when studying Buddhism, especially Buddhadasa. I have of course no idea how valid it is.
I could add that I suspect that the doctrine of the freemasons is exactly like that as well, with their most famous symbols of square (representing will) and compass (representing flexibility of mind).
Sanna is conditioned. There, now you completely understood it.
And no, that’s not what I mean by DO. The basic formula for DO is … when this arises that occurs, when this ceases that ends … roughly. It’s everywhere in the suttas, I’m just not going to go find it and put it here for you. Certainly, someone should have given this to you by now, so my apologies for being so terse and not taking the time. Really.
I’m very surprised that this rudimentary presentation of DO has not been provided for you to know and understand.
Schopenhauer wrote his The World as Will and Representation after he was exposed to Anquetil Duperron’s Latin translation of Dara Shikoh’s Persian translation of the Upaniṣads. There is not a lot of evidence to show that he was familiar with Buddhism at that time, and even though later in life he claimed to be a Buddhist, he’s not really thought of as … well … knowing much about it at all. He’s a little marked with having created the idea that it’s pessimistic, which, as we know, was to a certain degree carried through in Nietzsche.
Buddhism takes a lot of work. It is very difficult to understand.
I understand DO. What I am saying is that it is a later development in Buddhism compared to the Atthakavagga. It is like saying Paul knew about the Trinity. The Trinity came hundreds of years later.
I came to Buddhism after a relatively long period of studying Dilthey and being convinced by him that metaphysics are not possible.
So this Schopenhauer/Nietzsche metaphysical approach (altough I think with Nietzsche it is pretty much constructed, judging by his actual writings) is certainly not something I plan to stick with.
For the moment, I know of nothing but four noble truths, eightfold path (keeping it simple as Ajahn Brahm suggests).
I am really looking forward to this new period of study.
Is Buddhadasa somebody who’s teachings are widely supported by the members of this community and followers of early Buddhism?
That’s very interesting. I don’t know anything about Dilthey. I think you are going to bring a lot to the quite large number of people who see some similarities between phenomenology and Buddhism and show up here every once in a while.
Nietzsche has a passage on meditation that I encountered some time ago now, so I can’t recall in what, that brought a gleam to my eye. It’ll be marked down and tucked away somewhere, because I dabble in a Nietzsche, Emerson, Buddhism triad when I can, for, you know, various esoteric purposes.
As for Buddhadasa, yours is a good question. I think there are much better people on D&D able to answer it and I am pretty sure they will.
Well, enjoy your learning, and yes, do take it easy, of course.
I don’t really have the answer. However I find the most interesting explanation for me as to what “knowing and seeing things as they are” comes up here.
SN 12.23
Suffering is a vital condition for faith. Faith is a vital condition for joy. Joy is a vital condition for rapture. Rapture is a vital condition for tranquility. Tranquility is a vital condition for bliss. Bliss is a vital condition for immersion. Immersion is a vital condition for truly knowing and seeing. Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment. Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion. Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.
I’ve had some experience with vippassana (before I ever knew that was what it was).
The process of viewing dukkha in all external forms is greatly facilitated by a singular type of outward focus accompanied by an internal, mindful concentration.
Those two in concert give an unadulterated view of reality in which the inherent dukkha of all conditioned phenomena simply saturates every type of perception.
In my case, that penetration into the mark of dukkha also facilitated a certain “letting go”. Whereas my singular mindful concentration (internal and external) allowed for that very specific cognizance of the mark of dukkha; the perception of that mark in form (and all conditioned phenomenon - ie. perceptual input) was, in fact, the key to letting go completely.
What was a single point of concentration in the mind dissolved into complete non-grasping. I believe, at that time, this was my own “disenchantment” and “dispassion”. I’m not claiming any attainment, but during that time in my life I gained a type of “freedom” and “knowledge and vision of ending”.
So, the ultimate reality you seem to be talking about doesn’t so much occur when “knowledge and vision of things as they are” arise. It occurs when “knowledge and vision of ending” comes about.
Can you provide scholarly citations for this assertion?
While the Atthakavagga is generally considered to be an early text, it’s by no means complete with respect to the Buddha’s teachings.
Some of the suttas on DO may have had later additions or editing, but the basic formulation is intrinsic to the Buddha’s insight into the causes and cessation of dukkha. Not a late addition.
Intrinsic to all early and core teachings are the 4NTs, DO, and specific conditionality:
This being, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that does not exist; with the ceas- ing of this, that ceases.
(SN 12.21: iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imass’ uppādā idaṃ uppajjati. imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati).
Without this, everything falls apart in the practice. So to label this as a “later development” does not appear justified.
It is surprising to many that religious scriptures and doctrines evolve over time even long after the founder of a religion has died. It is even more shocking that scribes and religious authorities actually alter and falsely attribute new scriptures and doctrines to founders of religions. Yet this is known to happen.
Textual variants and analysis provide evidence of interpolation and outright forgery of documents. This has been a subject of serious Biblical Studies research. While I do not think Buddhist Studies has progressed anywhere near as far, I think it has progressed enough to give us reason to be skeptical about the authenticity of certain scriptures and should make us wary of attempts to harmonize what appears to be incompatible or incongruent. The existence of all the various schools of Buddhism should give us pause. To think that the Pali Canon, a canon that was open for hundreds of years, is the product of one individual is naive. We have to read it critically.
Consider the following quote from Ud 5.6 found here
This make it sound like “the Dharma” is completely contained in the Atthakavagga. How could that be? What about all the 4NTs, the 8fold Path, aggregates, the 12 links of DO. etc…? Some translators realize this and take out the definite article “the”. I don’t know Pali, but I don’t think it has a definite article. I think it is left to the reader to figure out. @sujato translation says “some dhamma”.
That said, I think we still have to consider the “the dhamma” reading. How would it be possible? It would be possible if the dhamma wasn’t that big. What if the Buddha really only taught suffering and the cessation of suffering?
The above translation is from Bodhi, but Bodhi says this translation is faulty in Tricycle Magazine. Yet, it has always been translated the way it appears in the quote with minor variations. Bodhi says that the conjunction changes things, but he never gives another example where the grammar is similar and it is clear that there is an exception. He says he is relying on the context of the sutta though I think he is really relying on his belief in the inerrancy of the canon.
That said, the problem with relying on the context of the sutta is that we have to assume the framing narrative in the sutta is true. A great many suttas seem to be built on a single central quote or idea, dare I say meme, and a story that often seems fanciful. Ud 1.10 is a great example of this. That said, could the Buddha have said and meant what the quote says? This would make for a small dharma.
If the Atthakavagga, or at least its core (Snp 4.2, Snp 4.3, Snp 4.4, and Snp 4.5), truly reflects the Buddha Dhamma then you would not expect to find a high percentage of what is in the Pali Canon. What you would expect to find is a reason to believe that the Dharma as stated in the Atthakavagga is complete in and of itself, as well as, many things that others could expound on and take liberties with even if the Buddha would not appreciate it. We do indeed find these in the core of the Atthakavagga.
These two quotes leave no room for the myriad of views actually in the Pali Canon. Goodbye 12 Links of DO, etc… Of course the apologist is going to say he doesn’t mean talk about what he has actually seen directly. Where do they get this? They get this from the necessity of it to be true in order to preserve their belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
Unfortunately for them, a great many of these things are declared in the canon are said to be “not declared” by the Buddha. I’ll spare you the quotes. There is a reason why the consolations of the dharma are stated as being conditional.
Liberation is relatively simple.
One last thing I will address is that even though we are not to formulate views, there are jumping off points later Buddhists expounded upon.
From “Having completely understood perception” they went on to talk about the truths of the arising and cessation of the world/suffering, the 4NTs. Completely understanding contact and perception are good candidates for right mindfulness and concentration. And so on.
The Atthakavagga encapsulates the dhamma while standing on one foot. The rest is commentary and not commentary that the Buddha would have likely endorsed. Einstein said "things should be as simple as possible and no simpler. " I think the Buddha believed the same.
I won’t respond to your many points here, but much of it is rather speculative – your views!
It’s best imo to refer to scholarly works – which doesn’t mean they’re without their own interpretations and problems – but which provide linguistic, analytic, and citations from parallels like the Chinese Āgamas to offer support for earlier and later texts or portions of texts.
Scholars like Bhikku Bodhi, Bhikkhu Sujato, Ven. Anālayo, and others have provided a number of well-supported papers and essays on the topic of the authenticity and dating of texts.
Asking someone to recite the Dhamma can be in a more general way, such as asking someone to recite a particular aspect of it.
Again, this is a very strong view which you’re entitled to hold, if you wish.
It’s not supported by many scholar-monks.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point, but are you implying the teachings in the first Three Sermons (SN56.11, SN22.59, and SN35.28), are just later commentaries which the Buddha would reprove?
Also, Einstein was talking about the beauty and power of simplicity with respect to the best scientific theories. He was not in favor of overly-complicated baroque scientific musings.
It’s not so applicable to the suttas, which clearly have a different purpose and function – including repetition, expansion and further clarification of teachings over the lifetime of the Buddha, and expressing different aspects of the teachings at different times and to different audiences.
Finally, we all have views. It’s dogmatic clinging to them that’s a problem while we’re practicing the Path. I mean, the first factor of the N8FP is Right View.
I deeply appreciate the Atthakavagga. I’m with you on that.
Stating it as the core and complete teachings of the Buddha – well, we can agree to disagree.
I happen to have Bhante @sujato book “The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts” in paperback, but it also happens to be available in PDF here.
The following is on page 72
and then there is this on page 63.
So based on this, the authors agree that the Atthakavagga is older than the four main Nikayas. So relative age of the Atthakavagga is not an issue for me.
One thing that is noteworthy is the following on page 80-81
What is interesting here is that no doctrinal categories have been cross referenced for the KN which includes the Atthakavagga. Is it possible that consistency has only been checked for DN, MN, AN, and SN? That would be a gap in the analysis.
Yes, but the fact that the 4NTs and the 8FP as well as aggregates, DO, 12 Links of DO are missing is staggering. I have never seen a summary of Buddhism that does not include at least the first two of these and usually they would have all. That is extremely odd.
So let’s be clear about what constitutes a view. We are talking about formulated views with regard to different realms and loka/the world/cosmos. This is why the Buddha has questions he won’t answer and why the consolations are conditional. If he did otherwise, he would violate this rule. This does not include the mundane such as what was in the Buddha Dharma. He definitely would have had an opinion on that.
I would say that the 12 Links of DO definitely constitutes a formulated view of the different realms. It is a detailed theory about how the different realms are traversed between lives and it is subject to disputes. Likewise, nibanna which says what happens to the Buddha after death. In the core of the Atthakavagga, the actual Octads, the Buddha does not long for this world or the next. He has found peace in this life come what may.
As far as my use of the word commentary, I am using it loosely. I mean it was developed over time. Commentary was not a good choice of words on my part.
With regard to what scholar monks think of this, they are monks in the Theravada School. Of course they are going to uphold orthodoxy.
He’s contradicting himself. In his book he lists the Atthakavagga as being earlier than the DN, MN, AN, and SN. This is consistent with with the consensus of scholars who use the list compiled by Rhys Davies who’s list he uses in his book. @sujato says what he would change on that list and moving the Octads/Atthakavagga is NOT one of them.
No I’m not. The Atthakavagga is earlier than the collections of DN, etc. as a whole, just as it is earlier than the collection of the Sutta Nipata as a whole. But it is no earlier than the early parts of those prose collections, which constitute the bulk of the prose doctrinal teachings.
Was a modernist. He taught in a way that was intentionally provocative against the established complacency of Buddhism in Thailand in his day and in reaction to Western materialism, which was sweeping through Asia at the time in both its Capitalist and Communist flavors.
I largely would not recommend him as a way to understand Early Buddhism even though I personally benefitted from his writings a lot, so I also don’t not recommend him either
Okay. I see that this is stated implicitly in your definitions section in the book. You did not contradict yourself.
I will read through the book to see if I find the arguments made that they are contemporaneous compelling. At this time, I think that there are significant contradictions and omissions that need to be addressed in order to support your thesis. I only see “Atthakavagga” appearing twice and Snp only appears a few times. it doesn’t look like you address its consistency with the four Nikayas. If you can point to the place in the book you think covers this, please let me know.
I reread your book. I do not see how the arguments made support the claim that the bulk of the four nikayas are as old as the Atthakavagga. The Athakavagga/Snp 4.* is only mentioned in a few places and in some of those places seem to imply its older. None of the named doctrines categories appear in Snp 4.* in your list and the fact that references to other suttas always go from four nikayas to Snp 4.* and not the other way around.
I also don’t think the main arguments made that may apply to the four nikayas apply to the Atthakavagga. There are no geopolitical references in the Atthakavagga to use as evidence. The scholarly opinion speaks of the four nikayas without mentioning the Atthakavagga.
As far as consistency between the two, I have pointed out what seems to be contradictions in this thread and others. The arguments I get back are always “It must be because of skillful means” or “formulated doesn’t include things the Buddha directly knew put in words”. The problems is that how does one know this. They offer it up because they see a difference and so try to come up with an explanation that preserves their assumption that it all came from the Buddha. The reasoning is circular. A better argument would be a demonstration that somehow these apparent differences reduce to the something.
I think a better approach overall would be to argue that there are three possible hypothesizes that are at all likely and to compare how well they explain the evidence.
The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the Atthakavagga and the four nikayas.
The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the Atthakavagga, but not the four nikayas.
The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the four nikayas, but not the Atthakavagga.
I think #2 and #3 fare best. In other words, the Atthakavagga was from the Buddha and the four nikayas were the product of later development by a individual or small group of systematizers; or the Atthakavagga was taught by a highly influential teacher of the Buddha and the Buddha developed the Four Nikayas using the Atthakavagga as a starting point.
