Jump to content

Talk:Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyanavagga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samatha only?

[edit]
The Attha and Para also differ in their articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little evidence of vipassanā at all, despite the important role played by the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to be connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct view to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views.

Maybe. Don't know. Note however in "The Cave of the Body" SN4.2, "Base people moan in the mouth of death, their craving, for states of becoming & not". A footnote by Thanissaro Bhikku on that page emphasizes that "States of not-becoming are oblivious states of becoming that people can get themselves into through a desire for annihilation, either after death or as a goal of their religious striving (see Iti 49). As with all states of becoming, these states are impermanent and stressful." This seems to me an important nuance. We may need to qualify the statement that the Attha is "leaning heavily on...samatha".

Well, I'm sure the commentary reflects accurately on later and Orthodox interpretation, but I'm not sure it reflects accurately on the intentions of the text, which probably had much more to do with the metaphysical distinction between being and nothingness than the experience of ultimate states of rest. Also, if you look down a little bit in the same translation:

Doing nothing for which he himself would rebuke himself, the enlightened person doesn't adhere to what's seen, to what's heard. Comprehending perception, he'd cross over the flood -- the sage not stuck on possessions. Then, with arrow removed, living heedfully, he longs for neither -- this world, the next.

Note the emphasis on checking action and eschewing sensory perception. Now, "Comprehending perception" is the kind of ambiguous phrase that can be used to translate anything, so I'm honestly not sure how to apply it to our argument. I'll need to look at the original. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

(Wonder whether "base people" are hina. If they are, that would sure blow the lid off something.)

Cf. "The ghost cave", a common expression in Chan/Zen meaning something quite similar to what's implied by SN4.2.

Similarly, SN4.4 has the expression "not impassioned for dispassion". There's a typo on the page but the footnote makes it clear. --Munge 08:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that "dispassion" in this case has little to do with samatha...

The brahman gone beyond territories,[10] has nothing that -- on knowing or seeing -- he's grasped. Unimpassionate for passion, not impassioned for dis-,[11] he has nothing here that he's grasped as supreme.

Ultimately, this is still a via negativa, rejecting perception, and also rejecting positive interpretations of the enlightened condition: it consists purely in having let go of things. This is consistent with a mode of practice which emphasizes peace over insight. (This is not to say that the text is inconsistent with later forms of Buddhism that do emphasize insight--but it does not appear to be the dominant thread at this stage, at least not in textual representations.) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽


I agree too that the mentioning of "Samatha only" and very "little about vippasana" intend of this article is completely wrong. The whole Parayanavagga (the 16 verses) the Buddha expounds both concentration and insight as the way to attain what must be attained by a "one gone forth" after restraint of the senses. Sila, then samadhi, then pañña. By the way, this does not conflicts with the idea of this books having a sense of Proto-Madhyamika, no contradictive.

One very direct example of this is this part of Sn 5.13:

With delight, the world's fettered. With directed thought it's examined. Through the abandoning of craving is there said to be Unbinding.

Insight meditation with necesary concentration as stated in Mahayana and Theravada suttas is this "With directed thought, it's examined". The first pointing to the necesary concentration, the last pointing to the examination of phenomena by insight.

What is the real purpouse of this article saying that this very early texts of buddhism does not expounds insight meditation "at all" instead of concentrative meditation? Seems more like a unsustained apocrifal unbiased academic or political statement spreading false views. If this continues, then it would be wise to label this article as "controversial" by an editor and the usual procedures by the noble wikipedia comunity.(to whom I not belong) Thank you.

Page move?

[edit]

After looking at this page again, I think it's problematic at its current location. The article currently gives very little information about why the texts it discusses might be considered the earliest form of Buddhism, whereas an article about Earliest Buddhism be a balanced discussion of what texts and other evidence might reveal about the subject, focusing primarily on the available evidence pro and con. Even the external link that is the major source for this article doesn't discuss much about why the texts are considered to be earlier. Considering its narrow focus, I think the article should be moved: the best place for it would probably be Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga. - Nat Krause 11:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions

[edit]

Thanks to Stephen for updating us on more recent research on this subject. Unfortunately, I have to take issue with a few elements of the addition:

According to Vetter, those suttas which do lend support to Gomez probably originated with a heterodox ascetic group that pre-dated the Buddha. The members of this group were integrated into the Buddhist Sangha at an early date, bringing with them some suttas that were already in existence and also composing further suttas in which they tried to combine their own teachings with those of the Buddha.

This passage is not a POV problem in itself, because the views are attributed to a particular expert source. However, as with some of the earlier text in the article, it comes across as little more than an assertion, because it doesn't describe any of the reasons that Vetter gives for believing this. The reader sees that some scholars believe this material is the earliest form of Buddhism, while others believe it is not Buddhist at all, but the reader is not given any information on why a scholar might take one position or the other.

In particular, the position propounded in these suttas which rejects all views and has "nothingness" as its religious ideal is diametrically opposed to the normative Buddhism of the Nikāyas.

It's not clear what "normative Buddhism of the Nikāyas" means here. Does it mean a generic normative form for Buddhism in general, or just for the philosophy presented in the Nikāyas? In any event, it is hardly NPOV to say that these ideas are "diametrically opposed" to the rest of, for instance, the Pali Canon. Theravada Buddhists presumably believe that the whole Pali Canon is internally consistent; Madhyamaka -influenced Buddhists certainly believe in emptiness and most of them probably believe that it squares with the Nikāyas (I understand that Nagarjuna quoted from them frequently).

It is certain that these deviant suttas

It's definitely not NPOV to refer to them as "deviant".

would have been known to the proponents of the Madhyamaka and were likely to have provided them with inspiration, which, of course, begs the question whether the later Madhyamaka doctrinal position to that extent, especially in its Prāsaṅgika form, can be considered to reflect the authentic teachings of the historical Buddha.

That seems like quite a strong conclusion to reach based on the evidence presented. Realistically, aren't the links between any form of existing Buddhist doctrine and the personal ministry of Siddhartha Gautama pretty tenuous? Therefore, one could readily attach the same question, can a school's "doctrinal position ... be considered to reflect the authentic teachings of the historical Buddha", in reference to any school. - Nat Krause 06:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it some thought. In an earlier msg on this page, you suggest the need for an article on "Earliest Buddhism". I have been planning to do just such an entry though it will be rather long. This will make some of my comments here a little less elliptical. I am just waiting for some off-prints of latest research that I want to incorporate. I should warn you, however, that recent findings are quite surprising about the nature of early Buddhism.
One other thing: you mention "the views are attributed to a particular expert source". What does one do if one is the expert source ? For example, I wrote about one third of the entries in the recent Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism -- all the Tibetan entries and most of the non-Pali Indian Buddhism entries. If I write something for Wiki, do I cite myself in that dictionary if other sources are unavailable ? --Stephen Hodge 02:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thanks

[edit]

There is no french study about these points.. Thx Wikipedia, thanks to the contributors of this article. well, i was about to add : be proud,but ^^ pyl 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aṭṭhakavagga_and_Pārāyanavagga&oldid=1199166082"