What exactly encompasses the "Path to Liberation"?

Q & A
21

The first four steps are said to be the “‘limbs’ of stream winning” in the Nikayas. I could expand the rest out thus:

associating with the wise
listening to their teaching of the Path
examining it
testing it

developing perfect ethics in thought (Right View, Right Aspiration), word (Right Speech) and deed (Right Action, Right Livelihood) (Stream Enterer)

developing perfect concentration (Right Concentration) (Once and Non Returner)

developing perfect wisdom (Right Insight) (Worthy One)
developing perfect liberation (Right Liberation) (Worthy One)

23

Good point here. Many confuse wisdom with “nyana” and this is one of the reasons for the arahantification of stream enterers that we see these days. Many get to believe a stream enterer is like an arahant or maybe even higher.

developing perfect ethics in thought

I don’t know why you would chose the worlds “ethics in thoughts”. Stream entry is described as been “acomplished in view” and as having made “the breakthrough of dhamma”. From my understanding of the suttas, a stream enterer is one witch has intelectually understood the non-existence of a self, witch requires a lot of contemplation on “higher teachings” found in SN chapter 2,3,4. From the understanding of non-existence of a self also comes the intelectual understanding of nibbana without imagining some form of consciousness in it. Another “stream entry test” we see in SN is that about “understanding the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of the 7 factors of enlightenment”. My full opinion with a lot of sutta refference are here: How is stream entry achieved?

So in short I would describe it as the understanding of non-existence of a self due to contemplation on higher teachings. That is why first fetter removed is “self view” and the other 2 are things that follow from this understanding. I do not see why it should be described as “ethics in thoughts”

  1. the cause is ignorance (NOT desire, which is the Hindu teaching)

We see in the suttas that ingorance and craving are the 2 forces that drive future existence. But in the context of the 4 noble truths, I think attachment is the more appropiate one. We have a sutta for example where Buddha asks a villiger if he would suffer if his relatives or friends would get imprisoned or killed or impovrished and weather he would suffer if people who he does not know would have such things happening to them.

Everything is impermanent. Because of attachment to impermanent things, suffering appears when these things change. The proximate cause here seems to be attachment with ignorance been a non-proximate cause.

24

As you would know, the suttas talk about the Path and Fruit of Stream Entry. As long as I did not know clearly the difference, then considering the qualities of a person at either stage would be quite useless. The also suttas seem to use different terms for Stream Enterers (SEs) and as long as I didn’t see why different terms were used, I assumed that they were interchangeable. My study indicates the first three fetters, as with the others, are gradually eradicated and this relates to the different terms used for SEs.

For me now, the one on the Path to Stream Entry, is at one of the first four steps mentioned above. One Attained to View, to me, is such a one and refers to the one who has heard the teaching and developed ‘verified confidence’, after associating, listening and reflecting, but has not yet tested the teaching (which is step 4 and which would convert Right View to Right Insight).

Once they have tested what they have heard and found it to be true in one lived experience, then they develop the Fruit of Stream Entry and the first taste of Right Insight, which saves them from lower births and makes them ‘endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration’.

One attained to view (on the path of SE) may not be able to do the six things, but with the deeper experience of the Dhamma, his ethics (morality) would expand to non-intentional killing of any human and the other aspects of ethics, which I think has been well maintained in the Bhikkhu Parajika rules. He may intentionally kill a mosquito, which is a lessor offence (and for me, not breaking ethics or morality).

Thus AN3.87 says, the SEs are perfect in ethics (does not break serious rules, but may break lessor rules), but only slightly accomplished in concentration and wisdom.

25

I agree, but there is quite a big emphasis in the suttas about understanding the non-existence of a self. For example there are inumerable times where Buddha is asked wrong questions, questions that show the person has not fully understood the higher teachings about how a being works. And we see at the end of such suttas "with volitional formations… " basically telling the person to go and contemplate higher teachings a little more until he will not ask such questions. So this right view is more about understanding how things work, understanding non-existence of a self etc. than about ethics. Though I agree with what you said I feel the description such as “ethics in thoughts” does not put enough emphasis on what “right view” of a stream enterer really means. Many people from all religions might qualify (or believe themselves to qualify) for ethics in thought.

I feel like the emphasis should be put on these higher teachings that Buddha left to the world so that we don’t need to rediscover them by ourselves again, becoming “silent buddhas”. I feel like today, all the focus is put on morality and “meditation” (whatever the person might understand by that) and basically zero emphasis on these higher teachings. They are there in SN but when was the last time you heard somebody advise a person to read and contemplate them ? I’ve heard a monk say that in buddhist countries, very few of the monks actually read the suta pitaka and most only read enough to pass the sutta exams.

26

Hi Vstakan

re who I think corrupted the Buddhasasana, when and why:

who: I think it was ignoble followers of the Buddha who had gained reputation, possibly through a show of being a true Bhikkhu (keeping minor rules), number of years of association and, or possibly high worldly education.

when: even while the Buddha was living monks were misrepresenting him, this is attested in the Nikayas

why: arrogance (one of the last fetters to go), thinking they knew, they taught

You might like to read my paper:

best wishes

2 Likes
27

I feel happy to hear that, but a concerning thing is the ‘kind of’. I think Dr Bucknell’s article, is a good/clear example of the methodology: View of The Buddhist Path to Liberation: An Analysis of the Listing of Stages

When we read the instruction in conjunction with the Buddha saying to Ananda that disagreements about the Path (not the Patimokkha) amongst his followers would be for harm of the many, it seems apt to focus the methodology on the path, which is what Dr Bucknell did in his study.

28

I translate ‘sakkaayadi.t.thi’ as ‘identity view’ and believe it is directly related to anattaa. I believe attaa in anattaa is mistranslated as ‘self’ and those who do so then naturally get caught up in more Hindu (and Taoist) philosophy about duality and non-duality.

Why mistranslated?

  1. I think the important feature in attaa that the Buddha wanted to address is permanence. I think he saw himself (pre enlightenment) and others clinging to something that was impermanent, as permanent, as soul. Therefore he encouraged people to examine their experience of clinging to see if the thing they cling to is permanent or not. I don’t believe he tended to dictate to others, ‘there is no soul’, just as he didn’t dictate ‘there is no (creator) God’. In English, the aspect of oneself that people believe in that is considered to be permanent is called ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’. Non-religious people can believe in an impermanent self, but I would not say they have Right View, necessarily.

  2. the Buddha could quite easily have used the term ‘anaham’ for ‘not self’, but it is not attested in the whole Tipitaka, from my digital search.

  3. The only place I have found the Buddha using the sentence ‘n’atthi attaa’ (there is no soul) is when he is talking about extreme views and it is paired with ‘atthi attaa’ (there is a soul) as an extreme view.

Right View for me includes understanding about ‘sakkaayadi.t.thi’ and ‘anattaa’ and that is part of ethical thought and is part of the process of developing verifiable confidence, also part of ethical thought.

Other teachers teach verbal and bodily ethics, but I believe the Buddha took it a step deeper, imo. This would be in line with ‘I call intention action’ where he took action (which can be ethical or not) beyond just word and deed.

1 Like
29

thanks, I’ve downloaded the book and intend to read it

30

Thanks for the book. I am reading right now. As for the no-self/no-soul idea I have responded in the other topic. Here is my post:

I perfectly agree with this. There are suttas explaining what “clinging aggregates” means. They are called like that because they can be clung to. The aggregates are not the fetter themselves, the delight and lust for them is the fetter there. And suffering comes to be because of the impermanence characteristic of these aggregates and because of clinging to impermanent things.

Secondarily and probably more contentious: I take anattā to mean ‘not-soul’ or ‘non-soul’ rather than ‘not-self’ for various reasons, e.g.:

I have to disagree with that. How would that fit in with the innumerable passages about seen things as no-self ? For example seen consciousness as no-soul or seen the body as no-soul would not make any sense.

attā is the Pali equivalent of ātman and ‘soul’ in English would seem to best represent a non-changing personal essence, atheists and agnostics would believe in a self, but probably not a soul

And that is why Buddha rejected anihilationism. Because they do believe in a self that gets destroyed. While in Buddha teachings, there was never any self to begin with, only self-view (the opinion that a self exists). This is strongly contradicting the no-soul idea by itself.

  • I recall reading in the suttas the Buddha saying something like: ‘if one doubts one’s existence, there is no possibility of the practice of the path’, sorry I can’t supply the reference.

It is a logical mistake to assume the aggregates do not exist because they are no-self. I believe you’re no-soul idea is an overreaction to the solipsist ideas of Nanananda, Nanavira etc. that have become popular today. For a proper refutal of existentialist/postmodernist/solipsist buddhism I suggest to do it using these suttas, not by changing the meaning of no-self:

  • SN 22.94 - explaining things do exist and that any “wise man in the world” agrees on that.
  • SN 14.7 - explaining the diversity of perceptions depends on the diversity of elements. In Triple N’s view only diversity of perceptions exist and the diversity of elements is just an illusion created through the internal process of assumption
  • SN 24.1 - calls solipsism a wrong view. Solipsism is listed as the first wrong view and the sutta is repeated 4 times throughout the “wrong view” section.
  • AN 6.41 - Explains how there is a wood-pile and how one can attend to different proprieties of this wood pile (such as the eath property, water property etc)
  • DN 5 - Explains what external material form is
  • MN 28 - Explains what external elements are

For more refutations of solipsism there is this topic: Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbana and Phenomenological Existentialism - #124 by mikenz66

31

= sabbe aniccaa

I have not found the Buddha to make such statements, which sound so dogmatic to me. It is rather sabbe x aniccaa, i.e. sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa. Mouthing a dogma would not inspire investigation, but pointing to an aspect of experience might.

1 Like
32

You have not heard buddha say that ? :

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.097.than.html

I feel you might believe in the Thanissaro or other thai forest taditions ideas of consciousness “luminous all around” in nibbana based on twisting 2 poetic verses from DN, disregarding hundreds of suttas from SN. A proper contemplation of SN chapter 2,3,4 (and by that I mean 3-4 months) will dispell that idea.

If this is the case, that would also explain the description of stream entry as having to do with ethics and not with properly understanding the non-existence of a self.

As for Thanissaro idea of “Buddha refused to answer if a self exists or not” - that is explained in the very sutta that he uses to make a case for such a thing. At the end of the sutta we see Buddha explain he did not answer like that to the bhramin so that he won’t become confused that there was a self but not the self is no more. In Buddha teachings, there was never a self to begin with. Only the opinion of a self existing. Just like Freud ideas about “super ego” or other non-existing things.

For more on consciousness: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

PS: Nibbana is pleasant not neutal. It is difficult to understand why it could be so while still imagining some form of consciousness in nibbana. (and therefore not understanding it) It seems paradoxical, but it is not after a proper understanding. There is even a sutta explaining that.

33

To me it seems the opposite, but maybe that’s due to my background in philosophy. I have read innumerable doctrinal, theoretical and philosophical discussions of topics such as the twelve nidanas and paticcasamuppada, the khandas and the six sense bases - and many other kinds of books and lectures on Buddhist philosophy and teachings. It’s all helpful and conducive it its place. But in the end it doesn’t get you where you need to go.

There is one passage in the Samyutta Nikaya, which I wasn’t able to locate this morning, where (as I recall) some of the younger monks question an experienced and wise Thera on his attainment. He basically says “I have not yet reached full attainment, because even though I understand the teachings perfectly, even the teachings on not-self, I have not yet eradicated the underlying conceit of a self.”

I have encountered too many “Buddhist philosophers” who seem nervous, aggressive, combative, insecure and compulsively talkative to think that contemplating and analyzing doctrines alone, without the moral and meditation training, is any kind of path to realization.

Also, the Buddha explicitly taught that the doctrinal teachings are a raft for crossing over, not something to hang onto dogmatically. The khandas are one traditional map of the mind. The six sense bases are another map, and the two maps overlap. They are useful. But other accounts of the mind are potentially useful as well. Even some contemporary neuropsychological research can be useful. But no matter how much one “gets it” intellectually, attachment can still be there because vimutti is not an intellectual attainment.

1 Like
34

That is why we should approach Buddhism as a religion.
Not as a religion we put blind faith in, or as something that becomes “an entity” in its own, forgetting the goal, but as something we should follow as a whole, not picking just the things we feel attracted to, like (only) studying suttas or only meditating. It’s the whole package we need and I think that makes the distinction between real buddhists and those who are focussed on just a single aspect of Buddhism.

1 Like
35

I suggest reading and contemplating the 4 nikayas, especially SN, in a serious manner like one would do with an engineering book for example. We see repeated numerous times in the suttas that one “should attend as a matter of vital concern” when listening to suttas. If the contemplation is done in a superfficial manner, the result will be just like with any other book. Also, it is important to read the book from start to finish, not by reading scattered suttas and then trying to make them fit together in our mind. Imagine doing that with an engineering book - reading pages at random and then trying to make them fit together in our mind.

But no matter how much one “gets it” intellectually, attachment can still be there because vimutti is not an intellectual attainment.

In order to do the first step of the noble 8thfold path (right view, stream enty), you do need to get it intellectualy and become “acomplished in view”. You can not skip this step. After you attain right view, then real practice for the removal of clinging starts. From then on, the focus is on practice and not on intellectually understanding things. That first step (right view) should have been done at this point. If that step is not done, then the practice done will have little value. If one starts directly with step 7 or step 8th of the path (as most do in the west) - then that is what can be called an amateurish approach that will not bring too much fruits.

“Bhikkhus, whether for a layperson or one gone forth, I do not praise the wrong way. Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, because of undertaking the wrong way of practice he does not attain the method, the Dhamma that is wholesome. And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? It is: wrong view … wrong concentration. This is called the wrong way. Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, because of undertaking the wrong way of practice he does not attain the method, the Dhamma that is wholesome.

Buddha path is gradual, he repeated numerous times that his path is gradual. You don’t start with the end stages of the path, you start with the first.

36

I read the nikayas every day. Usually at least 2 of 3 suttas - sometimes longer sections or vaggas. I’ve been doing that for some years now.

I also read a great deal of secondary literature and commentary on the nikayas, by monks and scholar practitioners, and also by non-Buddhist philologists and other scholars. It’s all very helpful and enlightening, but without the other practices to develop wisdom and wholesome states of mind from direct experience, it would be a dry, empty conceptual structure.

1 Like
37

That is very good, but I would give the advice to make sure to do it in order, from the start of the book to the end of the book just like one would do with any other book. The higher teachings are contained in SN chapter 2,3 and first samayuta of chapter 4. I have been reading individual suttas for many years and has basically zero results in terms of really understanding things. This is why I keep stressing this is so many of my posts. I know many people do the same as I have been doing for a long time.

The part about practice is contained in chapter 5 of SN and some other suttas from MN such as 39, 107, 125

38

Thanks a lot, Bhante! I will definitely read you paper!

1 Like
39

Thanks a lot, Bhante! I will definitely read you paper!

I have already read it and I agree with it. It may look shocking for people from buddhist countries, some brumesse monks might have a heart attack wile reading it. But this is nothing new to most people here at suttacentral who know the abbhidhamma, commentaries, vissudimagga have little to do with what Buddha taught. The paper is a good refutal of them through another angle. But I do not see how this is challanging the authenticity of suta pitaka of the theravada. The agamas and the pitakas of other schools are very similar. There exist analysis of every individual sutta compared to these other versions. It is no secret for anybody that DN for example is corrupted and created mainly for propaganda, B.Bodhi even writes this in the preface of SN. It is also known that about 12 of the 152 suttas from MN are quite probably latter aditions. And there are some other minor problems with later additions. But nothing too serious or having doctrinal implications. I do not see how you’re refutal of commentary,abbhidhamma and vissudimagga sources regarding the 1st buddhist council challanges the authencity of large parts of the nikayas if this is what you are tying to prove.

It’s a little like saying: " Look, the commentaries&co lied about the 1st buddhist council and tried to make it have more weight behind it. This means the council was pretty much worthless and sutta pitaka is doing terrible in terms of authencity because why would else would they lie about it ? "

This is not a logical way to challange authenticity of the sutta pitaka. It was something normal for sects that developed to do their best to increase their level of authenticity compared to other schools and create all kind of commentaries for this. It’s not like the theravada were the only evil guys out there trying to increase their authencitity level during the sectarian period. And they were not the only ones writing stupid abbhidhammas and claiming it was uttered by the Buddha. Other school did that too. Look for example how far mahayana shifted due to abbhidhamma after abbhidhamma added until they got to the point where sutta pitaka/chinese agamas - had became the last book in terms of importance in their tradition.

40

Sorry, I shouldn’t have said it was ignoble disciples, as, I believe, anyone with arrogance could still misrepresent the Buddha. Thus I believe the Arahant can teach as well as the Buddha and I recall reading that the Buddha said the only difference between him and Arahant disciples, is that he liberated himself without a teacher.

This might bring up the question, so how could it be that a person with Right View might misrepresent the Buddha, or put another way, misteach the 4NT? Indeed, I would say a person with perfect Right View could not misrepresent the Buddha.

The first fetter eradicated is only one example of Wrong View and I would say it would be the most harmful to himself and by extension, others. The SE therefore would not have perfect Right View, that is, Right View about every aspect of the 4NT. Thus he could mistake his opinion for truth. Thus, the Buddha gave the training out of arrogance: 'when you believe something, say “I believe this” not ‘this is true’.

I hear/read so many absolute statements, or statements of fact, regarding the Buddha’s teaching in these types of discussion, so I know those declarers of truth have not taken on this training. For if they did, they would ‘own’ their statements, know and express them clearly as their opinion, which can be done in many ways.

41

Thanks for the link, but it is only by inference that you present it. One could say, it is implied. The only time I know of that the Buddha would actually say ‘all is impermanent’ is by qualifying ‘all’ as the five aggregates.

I get the impression our discussion will not progress, as you refuse to question the translation of anattaa.

best wishes