PDA

View Full Version : Mundane and Supramundane



Aloka
30 Apr 11, 11:47
I was wondering what your understanding is of the terms 'mundane' and 'supramundane' Dhamma. Can you give any examples?

Deshy
30 Apr 11, 13:06
Examples: Rebirth is a mundane teaching for faith and morality. It encourages sila, the essential first stage of the practice. Not-self is a super-mundane teaching for relinquishment. It leads to Nibbana

Esho
30 Apr 11, 14:39
Examples: Rebirth is a mundane teaching for faith and morality. It encourages sila, the essential first stage of the practice. Not-self is a super-mundane teaching for relinquishment. It leads to Nibbana

Very clear Deshy, direct to the issue, thanks. ;)

Element
30 Apr 11, 22:50
I understand mundane as conventional reality, pertaining to matters of "self" and society. As Deshy said, the primary purpose is to cultivate morality or ethics.

Where as supramundane pertains to "not-self" & emptiness. As Deshy said, the primary purpose of which is to end suffering.

;D

An example of a mundane teaching is the Apannaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html), which criticises a householder that holds to a view of 'non-existence' and praises a householder than holds to a view of 'existence'. As shown in the Apannaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html), its purpose is for householders to adopt & practice the three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct & good mental conduct.

An example of a supramundane teaching is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html), which states holding exclusively to a view of either 'non-existence' or 'existence' is wrong view. As shown in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html), its purpose is to know, without doubt or hesitation, that whatever arises is merely dukkha and that what passes away is merely dukkha, and such knowledge is one's own, not depending on anyone else.

;D

BuckyG
06 May 11, 07:56
These seem like supramundane meanings of the mundane!? The mundane is the
ordinary, or down to earth, right? And "supra" means "beyond" basically, right? So: the teachings on The Mundane & The Supramundane are themselves supramundane? Would that be supra-supramandane? Meta-supramundane?:P

Does this have anything to do with cultural anthropological distinction between the sacred and the profane?

Wishing you all happiness in your hearts and peace in your lives.:peace:

Element
06 May 11, 09:09
"Supramundane" or "transcendent" pertains to emptiness (sunnata). The word is 'lokuttara', which means 'above the world' or 'beyond the world'.

The Buddha used the word 'the world' (loka), synonymously with suffering (dukkha). "Mundane" means "the worldly".


Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ – ‘ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīratthā lokuttarā suññatappaṭisaṃyuttā, tesu bhaññamānesu sussūsissāma, sotaṃ odahissāma , aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhāpessāma, te ca dhamme uggahetabbaṃ pariyāpuṇitabbaṃ maññissāmā’ti. Evañhi vo, bhikkhave, sikkhitabba’’nti.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html


The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html


"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html


Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html


"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

;D

BuckyG
06 May 11, 09:35
So when dukkha is absent the supramundane is present?

Element
06 May 11, 09:44
When dukkha is absent, with insight (vipassana/nana), the supramundane is present.

But when dukkha is absent because, say, your mind is unconscious or asleep, the supramundane is not necessarily present.

;D

stuka
06 May 11, 19:22
I understand the ideas of "mundane" and "supramundane" dhamma to be later contrivances that attempt to elevate superstition and speculative view to the same level as the Buddhadhamma (or higher). The Buddha spoke of the worldly to describe superstitions and speculative views that preceded him, and of that which is "beyond the world" to describe his own Dhamma, based in discernment and empirical reason, which transcends and allows one to rise above worldly concerns, including superstitions and speculative views.

There is a popular but erroneous view that holds that one must begin with (and end up with, as well) beliefs in various superstitions and speculative views in order to practice according to the Buddha's teachings. But the Buddha set all that aside with statements like:

"Enough, Udayi, of former times and future times. I will teach you the essence of the Dhamma: When there is this, there is that. With the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that cannot be; when this ceases, so does that."

and:


"Good, Bhikkhus! You say this and I also say it. Thus when this is present, that happens. When this arises, that arise. That is, because of ignorance, [volitional] formations arise. Because of [volitional] formations, consciousness arises. Because of consciousness, name and form arise. Because of name and form, the sixfold sense base arises. Because of the sixfold sense base, contact arises. Because of contact, feelings arise. Because of feelings, craving arises. Because of craving, clinging arises. Because of clinging, becoming arises. Because of becoming, birth arises. Because of birth, old age, sickness, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress arise. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha.

"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

Aloka
07 May 11, 02:02
Do you have references/links for the suttas mentioned, please Stuka ?

Cloud
07 May 11, 06:23
I take mundane to mean anything and everything that can be taught in language. Supramundane is experiential understanding, that which is seen directly by investigation and observation, not itself based on thought. Supramundane understanding is like knowing what sight is by seeing, or what sound is by hearing; it's not the sights and sounds themselves, separated and classified conceptually, but rather the experience itself. Enough of these experiences intuitively re-direct the mind and transform the mind until wrong views are abandoned.

stuka
07 May 11, 15:45
Do you have references/links for the suttas mentioned, please Stuka ?


MN 79 Culasakuludayi Sutta and MN 38 Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.

stuka
07 May 11, 15:57
I take mundane to mean anything and everything that can be taught in language. Supramundane is experiential understanding, that which is seen directly by investigation and observation, not itself based on thought. Supramundane understanding is like knowing what sight is by seeing, or what sound is by hearing; it's not the sights and sounds themselves, separated and classified conceptually, but rather the experience itself. Enough of these experiences intuitively re-direct the mind and transform the mind until wrong views are abandoned.

But everything the Buddha taught -- which of course includes his own lokuttaradhamma, his own Path right up through Nibbana -- he taught using language.

Cloud
07 May 11, 16:31
Yes stuka, but the supramundane understanding is the result of practice, not of conceptually understanding the teachings. Direct experiential insight is supramundane. All of the teachings are mundane, can not be other than mundane. They can _lead_ to supramundane knowledge. That is the difference between our world of thought and of true wisdom.

stuka
07 May 11, 16:55
Fine for you, but the Buddha did not teach Dhamma like that.

Cloud
07 May 11, 17:05
Didn't he? I'd appreciate it if you could find where a teaching is itself supramundane rather than a path to supramundane. Otherwise we'll both just have to agree to disagree and be happy with our views.

Cloud
07 May 11, 17:21
I've actually been trying to find something on this myself on the web, but it seems everywhere supramundane is used is talking about stream-entry and beyond, the fruits of the practice rather than the teachings themselves. If you find anything reputable otherwise, please let us know.

Cloud
07 May 11, 17:41
Maybe a better way of explaining what I mean as the difference between mundane and supramundane...

I tell you that a fire is hot, that it causes pain, and that you don't want to stick your hand in it. From that you've come to the mundane understanding that a fire is hot and causes pain.

Wanting to verify your understanding, you go ahead and stick your hand in the fire (just a little). The fire burns and causes you pain. That burning, that pain which you experience, would be the supramundane knowledge.

Anyone else wanna chime in? =)

stuka
07 May 11, 18:10
MN 117, Maha Cattarisaka SUtta (Bodhi trans):


7. “And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
*
8. “And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path:1103 this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.

The actual word in Pali is lokuttara, which does not mean "supramundane" in the sense that you are using it, which is a later interpretation based upon a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teachings as a description of "the true nature of reality".

The idea that is popular among so-called "traditionalists" that "supramundane" teachings are only for those who are arhants is a misrepresentation of the Buddhas teachings. The Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path -- the Buddha's own unique teachings -- are the lokuttara Path.


Edit: Thanissaro's translation ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html )translates "Discernment" rather than "wisdom":

"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

Esho
07 May 11, 18:12
Anyone else wanna chime in? =)

Hi Cloud,

When I stick my hand in the fire... just a little... I can experience pain. I am a devotee about having an experience so to learn. I have ever thought that the true way to learn is through direct experience because if it is not direct it will lead to delusion and to fabrication. This is about empirical knowledge and most of the achievements that one can have with the teachings of the Buddha, mainly the Pali Dhamma, are about direct experience. But, aren't we talking about empiricism more than Supra mundane issue?

The problems that have always been faced by empiricism is that the experience can not be given to another person. Is highly personal but that do not mean is not universal. Everybody that decides to put the hand in the fire, will experience pain. But you can not give that pain to that person just telling about pain.

The Buddha said, sensual pleasures are about gratification, danger and escape. We have to experience this when we are into a given pleasure. This is a universal experience but it has to be understood just by empirical experimentation. So I do not see where is the Supra mundane issue in this.

;)

Cloud
07 May 11, 18:15
You're actually saying the same thing I am. Everyone can experience it, but you can not give it to another person. The most oft-used metaphor is a finger pointing to the moon. The teachings are the finger, the moon is what you're meant to see for yourself. The Noble Eightfold Path as understood conceptually is mundane, but it leads to the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path.

Esho
07 May 11, 18:19
Everyone can experience it, but you can not give it to another person.

This is empirical knowledge, isn't it?

stuka
07 May 11, 19:29
What you are calling "supramundane", Cloud, is a matter of applying one's own experiential context to a teaching. The Buddha did teach to use experience to verify his teachings. One example:



Maybe a better way of explaining what I mean as the difference between mundane and supramundane...

I tell you that a fire is hot, that it causes pain, and that you don't want to stick your hand in it. From that you've come to the mundane understanding that a fire is hot and causes pain.

Wanting to verify your understanding, you go ahead and stick your hand in the fire (just a little). The fire burns and causes you pain. That burning, that pain which you experience, would be the supramundane knowledge.

Anyone else wanna chime in? =)


The Buddha taught:


Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.(Veludvareyya Sutta)


By the way, the word "supramundane" in itself means "supernatural".

stuka
07 May 11, 19:42
You're actually saying the same thing I am. Everyone can experience it, but you can not give it to another person. The most oft-used metaphor is a finger pointing to the moon. The teachings are the finger, the moon is what you're meant to see for yourself. The Noble Eightfold Path as understood conceptually is mundane, but it leads to the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path.

I'm not saying the same thing, no.

The "finger-and-the-moon" was not the Buddha's analogy. The Buddha described lokiya teachings, but these were the superstitions and speculative views that preceded him: karma, reincarnation, ancestor worship, etc. He did not describe these as "Noble". The Buddha described his own Eightfold Path as Noble and lokuttara. He did not delineate between a conceptual, "lokiya Noble" path that is "just understood conceptually" and a greater "lokuttara Noble Path" that is actualized or reified or put into practice. He described superstitions and speculative views as a lokiya path, and his own teachings as being "noble" and "lokuttara". And his use of "lokuttara" was that which rises above worldly concerns.

Cloud
07 May 11, 19:48
I was replying to Kaarine, who said essentially the same thing that I did...

I was only pointing out that there is the conceptual and the non-conceptual, intellectualization and direct experience. The direct experience is the transformative component that leads one to stream-entry and beyond; enlightenment isn't simply having a conceptual understanding of the teachings. Words are just words, it's the reality they point toward that is important. Nothing anyone says is supramundane, it can only point to the supramundane.

Anyway that's all I had to say, I'm outta this one. Later!

stuka
07 May 11, 20:20
Is the Buddha not using direct experience to teach here?:


Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.


The Buddha did not teach using an presumption that "there is the conceptual and the non-conceptual, intellectualization and direct experience." I know that this is a popular assumption in many sects, but it is not a given conceptual framework in the Buddha's teachings, and it is in itself an example of the sort of "intellectualization" of the Buddha's teachings that it claims to refute.

Element
08 May 11, 03:10
I take mundane to mean anything and everything that can be taught in language. Supramundane is experiential understanding, that which is seen directly by investigation and observation, not itself based on thought.

Yes stuka, but the supramundane understanding is the result of practice, not of conceptually understanding the teachings.
Hi Cloud

Your views are Mahayana views, when you assert "supramundane is beyond language".

The 'two truths' of Mahayana do not accord with the two truths of the Pali suttas.

The Pali suttas do not use the word 'supramundane' ('lokuttara': 'transcendent') as you are.

The Pali suttas use 'lokuttara' to refer to both certain teachings as well as a state of mind.

I am inclined to agree with the views of Stuka on this subject.

With metta

;D


Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

BuckyG
08 May 11, 07:17
All: I'm confused. I'm going to throw some things out their this thread seems to relate to not to impose them on the discussion but to aid im my grasping of the issue(s).

It seems to relate to: the profane/ordinary versus sacred in comparative religion studies; and to the epistemological distinctions not only between induction and deduction but also denotation and connotation. To define a tree, for instance, by denotation, simply requires pointing to a tree (denote means "to point to"). To define a tree, by connotation, however, requires asking what is it that all trees have in common? Or, put in terms of induction and deduction, a particular tree is an instance or sub-class (inductive understanding) of the general class (deductive understanding) "tree."

Speak, brothers & sisters. I await your insights.

stuka
08 May 11, 07:53
All: I'm confused.


In the Buddha's teachings, nothing is anywhere near as complicated as you describe. He described those superstitions and speculative views that preceded him, and which he saw as being conducive (through the effects of the asavas) to moral conduct, as being "right view that is affected by the taints (asavas). His own teachings, based in discernment and consisting of the 4NT/8FP, IDP/PS, the 3 Characteristics, anatta, sunnata, the 37 factors of Awakening, etc, he called Noble (ariyo) and described as being lokuttara), beyond "the world", meaning beyond worldly concerns. He didn't encumber his teachings with epistemology or ontology or metaphysical speculations.

Element
08 May 11, 08:42
A reincarnation of Gregory Bateson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson

BuckyG
08 May 11, 10:02
In the Buddha's teachings, nothing is anywhere near as complicated as you describe. He described those superstitions and speculative views that preceded him.... He didn't encumber his teachings with epistemology or ontology or metaphysical speculations.

A thicket of views and all that, right? IDP = iddhipada? What's PS? He did have an epistemology and ontology of his own, though, right? That is, his life wasn't totally void of theories of knowledge an being.

BuckyG
08 May 11, 10:05
Element: Do you mean me? I do love systems science, but he died after I was born.

Element
08 May 11, 10:28
Of course!

;D

Element
08 May 11, 10:36
IDP/PS
idappaccayatā paṭiccasamuppādo

idappaccayatā = the general process of cause & effect; conditionality

paṭiccasamuppādo = a specific process of cause & effect about how suffering arises & ceases

;D


Ālayarāmā kho panāyaṃ pajā ālayaratāya ālayasammuditāya duddasaṃ idaṃ ṭhānaṃ yadidaṃ – idappaccayatā paṭiccasamuppādo

For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

;D


‘‘Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo? Jātipaccayā, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ. Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti. ‘Passathā’ti cāha – ‘jātipaccayā, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ’’’.

"Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.020.than.html


THE LAW OF NATURE

The third topic I'd like to mention is conditionality (idappaccayata), which means:

because this is, this is; because this arises, this arises; because this is not, this is not; because this quenches, this quenches.

These conditions are called "idappaccayata," the law that things happen according to causes and conditions. We can also call it dependent origination (paticca-samuppada) because idappaccayata and paticca-samuppada are the same thing, the same principle of wisdom to be studied, seen, and understood. You will see that everything in the world is constantly flowing, that all the world is in continual flux. It is a profound and complex matter. Many books treat it in great detail, particularly when it's described in terms of dependent origination.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Natural_Cure_for_Spiritual_Dise ase2.htm

andyrobyn
08 May 11, 10:47
A reincarnation of Gregory Bateson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson


Best known to my mind as being married to anthropologist Margaret Mead and together having Mary Catherine Bateson, with whom he wrote the work Angels Fear .... in this way he has been reincarnated many times in the education of anthropolgy students worldwide I would suspect ....

Full fathom five thy father lies;
of his bones are coral made;
Those pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Seanymphs hourly ring his knell:
Ding-dong.
Hark! Now I hear them, Ding-dong, bell.


SHAKESPEARE, The Tempest

Aliarchus
08 May 11, 10:52
Hi Aloka

The old adage that "context is everything" is relevant here.

Mundane -

Lokiya (& lokika) (adj.) [fr. loka; cp. Vedic laukika in meaning "worldly, usual"] 1. (ordinarily) "belonging to the world," i. e. -- (a) world -- wide, covering the whole world, famed, widely known Th 1, 554; J vi.198...

...2. (special meaning) worldly, mundane, when opposed to lokuttara.

Supramundane -

Lokuttara: The term lokuttara has two meanings -- viz. (a) in ordinary sense: the highest of the world, best, sublime (like lokagga, etc.), often applied to Arahantship, e. g. lokuttaradāyajja inheritance of Arahantship J i.91; DhA i.117; ideal: lokuttara dhamma (like parama dhamma) the ideal state, viz. Nibbāna M ii.181; pl. l. dhammā M iii.115. -- (b) (in later canonical literature) beyond these worlds, supra -- mundane, transcendental, spiritual. In this meaning it is applied to the group of nava lokuttarā dhammā (viz. the 4 stages of the Path: sotāpatti etc., with the 4 phala's, and the addition of nibbāna),...

.... lokiya (in meaning "mundane") is contrasted with lokuttara ("transcendental") at many passages of the Abhidhamma,

Source: Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary.

A

Element
08 May 11, 11:27
Best known to my mind as being married to anthropologist Margaret Mead and together having Mary Catherine Bateson, with whom he wrote the work Angels Fear .... in this way he has been reincarnated many times in the education of anthropolgy students worldwide I would suspect ....
Yes, Andy

I once was a big fan. I read all of his books I could find. I particularly enjoyed Steps To An Ecology of Mind.

Nice to read others are familiar with GB.

;D

andyrobyn
08 May 11, 11:36
Yes, Andy

I once was a big fan. I read all of his books I could find. I particularly enjoyed Steps To An Ecology of Mind.

Nice to read others are familiar with GB.

;D

Oh yes, the most engaging formal studies I have undertaken have been in anthropology ( followed closely by a term of first year philosophy and logic ) - so relevant to the functional, as well as spirirtual aspects of our lives

stuka
08 May 11, 15:58
A thicket of views and all that, right? IDP = iddhipada? What's PS? He did have an epistemology and ontology of his own, though, right? That is, his life wasn't totally void of theories of knowledge an being.

Not really. He saw them as speculative and refused to answer such questions, or redirected them toward his own phenomenological teachings.

Aloka
08 May 11, 17:54
Hi Aloka

The old adage that "context is everything" is relevant here.......


Hi Aliarchus, Re #36 - I usually look up Pali words in these two places:

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_l.htm

and:

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_l.htm#lokuttara

BuckyG
09 May 11, 06:33
I'm on "idle" with this thread because I'm right in the middle of Ajaan Lee's treatment of it in his The Craft of the Heart (pretty sure it's on ATI). He contextualizes it terms of jhana (rupa and arupa).
B@ease
BG

BuckyG
10 May 11, 06:49
Is the supramundane the same thing Ajaan Lee means in The Craft of the Heart (Thanissaro Bhikkhu Tr.) by "the transcendent"? Also, if I've read it right, Aj. Lee says rupa jhana is mundane and arupa jahna is transcendent/supramundane. (1) Did I get Aj. Lee right? & (2) did Aj. Lee (via Aj. Geoff) get it right?
b@eze
bg

stuka
10 May 11, 07:56
Is the supramundane the same thing Ajaan Lee means in The Craft of the Heart (Thanissaro Bhikkhu Tr.) by "the transcendent"? Also, if I've read it right, Aj. Lee says rupa jhana is mundane and arupa jahna is transcendent/supramundane. (1) Did I get Aj. Lee right? & (2) did Aj. Lee (via Aj. Geoff) get it right?
b@eze
bg

You might want to quote passages on that.

All of the Buddha's own teachings are lokuttara: the 4NT, the 8FP, the 3 Characteristics, Anatta/Sunnata/Tathana, IDP/PS in the here and now, Anapanasati, Satipatthana, the Golden Rule, the whole shebang.

BuckyG
10 May 11, 10:09
You might want to quote passages on that. I was being lazy, sorry.


...The four levels of arupa jhana are nothing other than the mind dwelling on the four types of mental phenomena (nama). In other words, the mind starts out by getting caught up with a sense of pleasure and well-being that isn't focused on any object or image, but is simply an empty, spacious feeling (vedana). This is the first level of arupa jhana. On the second level, the mind is caught up with the act of consciousness (viññana). It's focused on an empty sense of awareness as its object — simply the act of consciousness happening over and over continuously, without end. This is called absorption in the sense of unbounded consciousness, i.e., being stuck on the act of consciousness. On the third level of arupa jhana, the mind is caught up with the act of mental fashioning (sankhara), which merely arises and passes away. Nothing, nothing at all appears as an image, and the mind simply thinks about this over and over again. This is called absorption in the sense of nothingness, i.e., being stuck on mental fashioning. On the fourth level of arupa jhana, the mind is caught up with the act of labeling (sañña), seeing that it can't say that there is a label for what it has just experienced or is now experiencing, and it can't say that there isn't. Thus it falls into absorption in the sense of neither perception nor non-perception....

The way in which the four levels of rupa jhana and the four levels of arupa jhana are fashioned can be put briefly as follows: Focus on any one of the four properties making up the sense of the form of the body (earth, water, fire, and wind). This is rupa jhana. The one object you focus on can take you all the way to the fourth level, with the various levels differing only in the nature of the act of focusing. As for arupa jhana, it comes from rupa jhana. In other words, you take the sense of physical pleasure coming from rupa jhana as your starting point and then focus exclusively on that pleasure as your object. This can also take you all the way to the fourth level — absorption in the sense of neither perception nor non-perception — with the various levels differing only in their point of view. Or, to put it in plain English, you focus (1) on the body and (2) on the mind.

Rupa jhana is like a mango; arupa jhana, like the mango's taste. A mango has a shape, but no one can see the shape of its taste, because it's something subtle and refined. This is why people who don't practice in line with the levels of concentration go astray in the way they understand things. Some people even believe that death is annihilation. This sort of view comes from the fact that they are so blind that they can't find themselves. And since they can't find themselves, they decide that death is annihilation. This is like the fool who believes that when a fire goes out, fire has been annihilated. Those who have looked into the matter, though, say that fire hasn't been annihilated, and they can even start it up again without having to use glowing embers the way ordinary people do....

Rupa jhana, once mastered is like being a government official who works and earns a salary. Arupa jhana, once mastered, is like being a retired official receiving a pension from the government. Some people, when they've finished government service, simply curl up and live off their pensions without using their skills to provide themselves with any further benefits. This is like people who master rupa jhana and arupa jhana and then don't use their skills to gain the further benefits of the transcendent.... If you do want to gain those benefits, though, here's how it's done....
The four levels of rupa jhana and the four levels of arupa jhana, taken together, are called the eight attainments (samapatti), all of which come down to two sorts: mundane and transcendent . In mundane jhana, the person who has attained jhana assumes that, 'This is my self ,' or 'I am that,' and holds fast to these assumptions, not giving rise to the knowledge that can let go of those things in line with their true nature. This is classed as sakkaya-ditthi, the viewpoint that leads us to self-identification, the feeling that, 'This is me,' or 'This is mine.... Thus whoever attains jhana without abandoning the three fetters (sanyojana) is practicing mundane jhana. Mundane jhana, unless you're really expert at it, is the easiest thing in the world to lose. It's always ready to deteriorate at the slightest disturbance from sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. Sometimes you may be sitting in jhana and then, when you get up and walk away, it's gone.

As for transcendent jhana: When you've attained rupa jhana, you go back to examine the various levels until you are expert at them and then develop insight meditation so as to see mundane jhana for what it really is. In other words, you see that the preoccupations of both rupa jhana and arupa jhana are inconstant, stressful, and not-self.... Once you have mastered these two modes of jhana, they will give rise to the various abilities, mundane or transcendent, taught by Buddhism that differ from worldly skills in that they can arise only after the attainment of jhana. Among these skills are the three skills (vijja), the eight skills, and the four forms of acumen (patisambhida-ñana).

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/craft.html#p2-18, my emphases; The Craft of the Heart, Part II, "Jhana."

mayUb@eze
bg

Aloka
29 May 11, 11:49
I remembered that Ajahn Buddhadasa mentioned mundane and supramundane somewhere and so I checked it out - and its in "Handbook for Mankind ".




EMANCIPATION FROM THE WORLD

Vipassana meditation is mental training aimed at raising the mind to such a level that it is no longer subject to suffering. The mind breaks free from suffering by virtue of the clear knowledge that nothing is worth grasping at or clinging to. This knowledge deprives worldly things of their ability to lead the mind into further thoughtless liking or disliking.

Having this knowledge, the mind transcends the worldly condition and attains the level known as the Supramundane Plane (Lokuttara-bhumi).

In order to comprehend clearly the supramundane plane, we have to know first about its opposite, the mundane plane (Lokiyabhumi). The mundane plane comprises those levels at which the things of the world have control over the mind.


http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa12.htm




So I think that possibly one could establish from what has been said previously and in this quote, that morality teachings and lay observances suitable for busy householders with families etc might be classified as mundane teachings, or preliminary practices, -and the teachings such as those concerning meditation and contemplation, might be considered to be supramundane teachings.

:hands:

Aloka
24 Jul 19, 16:19
Moving on, I saw this talk "The Mundane and Supramundane" by Ajahn Brahm on the BSWA website... and thought I'd post it on the end of this old topic which is from way back in 2011.




"Ajahn Brahm reflects upon our mundane reality and the quest to attain supramundane, transcendent experience."

http://podcast.bswa.org/e/the-mundane-the-supramundane-ajahn-brahmavamso/



:hands: