Share on Facebook
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread: Bhikkhu Analayo debunking the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta

  1. #21
    Forums Member daverupa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    There is much in the Suttas that the Buddha describes as lokuttara, ALL of which falls under his descriptions of the Noble Path Factors in MN117.
    Please spare a moment or two and educate me. I am trying to find lokuttara throughout the Suttas, but "there is much" doesn't seem accurate. So if that's the case for your memory, please indicate a few places. I can only notice MN 117 and otherwise the frequent pericope "the discourses of the tathagata - deep, deep in their meaning, lokuttara...". The Buddha describes the half-measures to which you refer in many ways, but MN 117 is the only use of this dichotomy to do so. I don't think "sammahitthi sasava" [sic] exists; sammaditthi sasava exists only in MN 117.

    The "abhidhamma" didn't exist when the Buddha gave this discourse.
    This assumes your conclusion.

    He distinguished his own teachings as superior to others in many ways throughout the Suttas, for example, when he called his own teachings "the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end", or when he said such things as "Monks, the ending of the effluents is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see. Seeing what? ...." -- and of course, in every case...
    ...well, let's have a case I've asked for above, the use of lokuttara that isn't MN 117 and that isn't in that pericope. I implore you to indicate relevant texts.

    HE DOES NOT DESCRIBE WRONG-VIEW ELEMENTS OR RIGHT-VIEW-WITH-EFFLUENTS ELEMENTS AS BELONGING TO THE PATH.
    I agree. Moving on:

    THE ONLY REFERENCE THE BUDDHA MAKES TO "PATH" ARE CONTAINED IN HIS DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS OWN, ARIYO LOKUTTARA, TEACHINGS.
    Which texts have ariyo lokuttara? I know about ariyo aññhaṅgiko maggo & nava lokuttara, but not this other phrase.

    So yeah, I'm missing a place where lokuttara shows up in the contexts you've indicated. "Mundane" junk and "with-effluents" junk is just not related to the Dhamma at all, not one whit, we agree here, stuka. But this use of lokuttara in MN 117 is also late. It seems to me only to show up later, in the early abhidhamma period that presages the scholastic Abhidhammas.
    Last edited by daverupa; 03 Aug 14 at 14:18.

  2. #22
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by daverupa View Post
    Please spare a moment or two and educate me. I am trying to find lokuttara throughout the Suttas, but "there is much" doesn't seem accurate. So if that's the case for your memory, please indicate a few places. I can only notice MN 117 and otherwise the frequent pericope "the discourses of the tathagata - deep, deep in their meaning, lokuttara...".
    You call this a "frequent pericope" as if its appearance there counted for nothing.


    The Buddha describes the half-measures to which you refer in many ways, but MN 117 is the only use of this dichotomy to do so. I don't think "sammahitthi sasava" [sic] exists;
    That would be an obvious typo, wouldn't it.


    sammaditthi sasava exists only in MN 117.
    And you claim that if the Buddha said something infrequently, that he must have never said it, even though it it is part of a summary that explains his teachings thoroughly? Wow.

    This assumes your conclusion.
    This assumes the status quo, for which there is great supporting evidence. You are making the positive claim here that MN117 is a counterfeit. You have the burden of proof.

    ...well, let's have a case I've asked for above, the use of lokuttara that isn't MN 117 and that isn't in that pericope. I implore you to indicate relevant texts.
    Move the goalposts much?

    I agree. Moving on:
    There is no disagreeing to incontrovertible fact.

    Which texts have ariyo lokuttara? I know about ariyo aññhaṅgiko maggo & nava lokuttara, but not this other phrase.
    I am talking about this sutta.

    So yeah, I'm missing a place where lokuttara shows up in the contexts you've indicated. "Mundane" junk and "with-effluents" junk is just not related to the Dhamma at all, not one whit, we agree here, stuka.
    Which only leaves the liberative teachings, which the Buddha describes here specifically as "lokuttara".


    But this use of lokuttara in MN 117 is also late.

    You are simply guessing that based on the musings of a poor scholar and some random blogger on the internet and running with them.


    It seems to me only to show up later, in the early abhidhamma period that presages the scholastic Abhidhammas.

    Except for the small, inconvenient fact that the Buddha uses this term to describe his liberative teachings in this sutta and distinguish them from the superstitions which preceded him, perfectly in accordance with the rest of his own teachings and with reality.


    And by the way, I have found a thread over at E-Sangha-West in which you yourself post and interact with the blogger whose nonsense you cited (who goes by the moniker "Sekha" there), and whom you denied having any knowledge about.

    And your blogger's rant was thoroughly debunked and exposed for its sloppy "scholarship" there as well.
    Last edited by stuka; 03 Aug 14 at 20:34.

  3. #23
    Forums Member daverupa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka View Post
    You call this a "frequent pericope" as if its appearance there counted for nothing.
    "As if" is your own assumption; "for nothing" is not my claim.

    And you claim that if the Buddha said something infrequently, that he must have never said it, even though it it is part of a summary that explains his teachings thoroughly?
    This is also not my claim.

    Move the goalposts much?
    Passive-aggressively insinuate much?

    You are simply guessing that based on the musings of a poor scholar and some random blogger on the internet and running with them.
    Well, it's more a pursuit within the field of Early Buddhism in general, the pile of guesses involved in the enterprise of assessing the earliest texts we have, winnowing chaff such as it can be ascertained, etc. It's an ongoing endeavor.

    Your own apparent approach of taking the Pali Nikayas as inviolate Buddhavacana in toto is surprising. Is this a misunderstanding on my part? I'd be surprised if you were taking the texts as a unified whole without trying to consider their developmental history and related issues of critical thinking and contextual understanding.

    Anyway, you've somehow hit on a process that you think involves no guessing and is certain and inviolable. But it leads to aggressive displays of internet language, which boggles the mind as far as integrous speech is concerned. But this must be the medium of the internet being unforgiving, surely.

    And, that blogger, "my blogger" as you so winsomely put it, isn't someone I know at all. You asked if I knew them, but I do not, despite an earlier internet discussion, so this is just pedantry.

    By the way, in that thread you've tenaciously & doggedly located & mentioned, Sylvester offered a fuller comment that remarks on the lateness of MN 117 as well as the more important question of whether the dichotomy there is warranted by earlier material or not.

    http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic...art=60#p215589

    It may very well be so warranted, but it wouldn't make it any earlier; lokuttara may be an authentic general descriptor, but MN 117 employs it to unique effect.

    The discussion in that thread also touches on the complex interplay of early contexts, which is a useful and fruitful arena to explore, contrary to my understanding of your unilateral approach to the texts.

    I simply try to account for the broader contextual development of the texts we have, forced to this by the fact of different textual transmissions with subtle differences.

  4. #24
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by daverupa View Post
    "As if" is your own assumption; "for nothing" is not my claim.

    You are attempting to disingenuously trivialize its presence there. It's not working for you.


    This is also not my claim.
    It's ONE of your claims, and a claim that you base your preposterous assertions on.


    Passive-aggressively insinuate much?

    Not at all.


    Well, it's more a pursuit within the field of Early Buddhism in general, the pile of guesses involved in the enterprise of assessing the earliest texts we have, winnowing chaff such as it can be ascertained, etc. It's an ongoing endeavor.
    No, it's a matter of you making preposterous claims about the authenticity of an important sutta based on the incoherent rantings of a random blogger and the debunked poor scholarship of a biased woo-monger.


    Your own apparent approach of taking the Pali Nikayas as inviolate Buddhavacana in toto is surprising.
    I have done no such thing, Rosanne Rosannadanna.

    Irrelevant red herring rant based on strawman position in 3...2...1...

    Is this a misunderstanding on my part? I'd be surprised if you were taking the texts as a unified whole without trying to consider their developmental history and related issues of critical thinking and contextual understanding.

    Anyway, you've somehow hit on a process that you think involves no guessing and is certain and inviolable. But it leads to aggressive displays of internet language, which boggles the mind as far as integrous speech is concerned. But this must be the medium of the internet being unforgiving, surely.
    Translation: "I have no defense for my preposterous claims, so I'm going to lay down a smoke screen by making wild accusations about stuka".


    And, that blogger, "my blogger" as you so winsomely put it, isn't someone I know at all. You asked if I knew them, but I do not, despite an earlier internet discussion, so this is just pedantry.
    I asked if you knew who he or she was and you lied and said you didn't. You have interacted with this person in another forum. You KNOW that this person was just some random poster at Buddhaghosa-dhamma Wheel who wrote a sloppy blog post (which was strongly criticized there). This isn't the first time you have disingenuously tried to misrepresent what I asked you about him/her.



    By the way, in that thread you've tenaciously & doggedly located & mentioned,...
    I Googled "analayo MN117" and it came up as one of the first hits. Hysterical paranoid hyperbole much?



    Sylvester offered a fuller comment that remarks on the lateness of MN 117 as well as the more important question of whether the dichotomy there is warranted by earlier material or not.
    Sylvester's OPINION is irrelevant to this.

    It may very well be so warranted, but it wouldn't make it any earlier; lokuttara may be an authentic general descriptor, but MN 117 employs it to unique effect.

    That doesn't make it inauthentic or "a later addition" by any stretch of the imagination.


    The discussion in that thread also touches on the complex interplay of early contexts, which is a useful and fruitful arena to explore, contrary to my understanding of your unilateral approach to the texts.

    Your STRAWMAN.

    I simply try to account for the broader contextual development of the texts we have, forced to this by the fact of different textual transmissions with subtle differences.


    What you have done is claim that MN117 is inauthentic here and in other threads based on others' poor research and bad scholarship and your own failure to further investigate and falsify their claims.
    Last edited by stuka; 04 Aug 14 at 18:51.

  5. #25
    Forums Member daverupa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    732
    Thanks, stuka.

  6. #26
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by daverupa View Post
    Thanks, stuka.
    Any time.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Sat, 5:18 PM Sat, 7:18 PM Sun, 1:18 AM Sun, 6:48 AM Sun, 9:18 AM Sun, 12:18 PM