Interpretational inconsistencies? Clarification help, please!

[Apech]

8 hours ago, S:C said:

From another thread:

 

Gautama wasn’t teaching ontology, too?! But how then could he teach morals? Isn’t ontology a step before? (Genuine interest, I am seriously startled at this statement.) 

Isn’t it possible to deduct what his metaethical and ontological perspective was through the canonical texts? 
Is there anyone I could ask this who has a well rounded knowledge on this subject/matter? 
 

[I am still trying to find answers on the questions of the first posters, it all seems bit of like an avalanche, sorry for the timely delay, might need a few days vacation to write that all out.]

 

Hi @S:C,

 

Since @Daniel was quoting me I guess I should explain what I meant.  I think that systems like Samkhya, Vedanta and so on are setting out to describe reality - or put simply answer the question 'what is it?' and at the same time 'who/what am I?' - and in terms of Advaita Vedanta which is perhaps the most developed form of this kind of thought we find positive statements about what it is (brahman) and what the self is 'atman' and that they are not-two.  In other words we can find in those systems of thought statements about the nature of 'being' which is what I would call an ontological solution to the problem of existence.

 

In Buddhism on the other hand there is a positive reluctance to do this (despite the abhidharma) - which is why I said it wasn't offering an ontological solution but a soteriological one.   I think in terms of Sila or moral conduct, I understand this in terms of cultivation.  Morality/ethics is a way of shaping our selves to be worthy vessels for wisdom.  I am not saying that this is arbitrary as for instance treating others with respect and kindness is reflective of how we would see our relation to them if we were Buddhas.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Apech

[Mark Foote]

13 hours ago, S:C said:

What do you mean by this?

I don‘t think I understood.

No teacher can abstractly explain this?
 

In order to practice "the right speech that is… a component of the Way", a person must be "one who, by developing the [noble] Way is of [noble] thought, of cankerless thought, and is conversant with the Way".  

If you're not conversant with the Way, you can't get to "the right speech that is… a component of the Way" by simply avoiding "lying, slanderous speech, harsh speech, and gossiping".  That's just "the right speech that… ripens unto cleaving (to new birth)", not "the right speech that is… a component of the Way".

If you not already familiar with "the Way", then you can't practice the right speech that is a component of the way.  If you can't practice the right speech that is a component of "the Way", then how will will you ever become "one who, by developing the [noble] Way is of [noble] thought, of cankerless thought, and is conversant with the Way"?

You can't get there from here.

[S:C]

36 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

You can't get there from here.

I see.

 

Right view (in the Buddhist sense) means familiarity with the (Buddhist) Way. Thanks. 

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, S:C said:

I see.

 

Right view (in the Buddhist sense) means familiarity with the (Buddhist) Way. Thanks. 
 

 More than familiarity, "right view that is… a component of the Way" requires "perfect wisdom":
 

Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

 

Got "perfect wisdom"?  how can a person acquire "perfect wisdom", without "right view that is ... a component of the Way"?  How can a person have "right view that is ... a component of the Way" without "perfect wisdom"?

You drive what I'm seeing at?

 

 

[S:C]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

 

Got "perfect wisdom"?  how can a person acquire "perfect wisdom", without "right view that is ... a component of the Way"?  How can a person have "right view that is ... a component of the Way" without "perfect wisdom"?

You drive what I'm seeing at?

 

 

[How did I lose the ability to split quotes? Is this no longer desired?]

Right after I posted the above answer, I felt quite sad, exhausted and resignated and like I will get a cold. Now I am confused again, but my headache is gone. This is not relevant, no. I might be tired though and thus unusually slow to get ‚it‘.
 

Your own questions seem to suggest that it is a reflexive circle.

 

However I don’t get the video metaphor, was this a cinnamon muffin (perfect wisdom) and he couldn’t swallow it so he needs milk (right view)? 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by S:C

[Mark Foote]

2 hours ago, S:C said:

I see.

 

Right view (in the Buddhist sense) means familiarity with the (Buddhist) Way. Thanks. 
 

Let me try what I hope is a more useful explanation.

 

A central theme of Gautama’s teaching was the cessation of “determinate thought” (AN III 414) in action, meaning the cessation of the exercise of will or volition in action.  A cessation of the exercise of will could be attained, said Gautama, through the induction of various successive states of concentration. 

(Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")

 

 

In one of his lectures, Shunryu Suzuki spoke about the difference between “preparatory practice” and “shikantaza”, or “just sitting”:
 

But usually in counting breathing or following breathing, you feel as if you are doing something, you know– you are following breathing, and you are counting breathing. This is, you know, why counting breathing or following breathing practice is, you know, for us it is some preparation– preparatory practice for shikantaza because for most people it is rather difficult to sit, you know, just to sit.
 

(“The Background of Shikantaza”; Shunryu Suzuki, Sunday, February 22, 1970, San Francisco; transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)

 

Suzuki said that directing attention to the movement of breath (“following breathing… counting breathing”) has the feeling of “doing something”, and that “doing something” makes such practice only preparatory.
 

Although attention can be directed to the movement of breath, necessity in the movement of breath can also direct attention, as I wrote previously:
 

There can… come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.
 

(Common Ground)
 

There’s a frailty in the structure of the lower spine, and the movement of breath can place the point of awareness in such a fashion as to engage a mechanism of support for the spine, often in stages (see A Way of Living).
 

... When necessity places attention, and a presence of mind is retained as the placement shifts and moves, then in Gautama’s words, “[one] lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness”:
 

Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.  (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.
 

(SN v 198, Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parenthetical material paraphrases original; “directed” also rendered as “initial” MN III p 78 and as “applied” PTS AN III p 18-19)

 

 

The difficulty is that most people will lose consciousness before they cede activity to the location of attention–they lose the presence of mind with the placement of attention, because they can’t believe that action in the body is possible without “doing something”.

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.
 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.
 

(SN II 65, Pali Text Society SN Vol II pg 45, emphasis added)

 

“Birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair”—in some of his lectures, Gautama summarized “this entire mass of ill” by saying “in short, the five groups of grasping”.  Grasping after a sense of self in connection with phenomena of form, feeling, mind, habitual tendency, or mental state is identically suffering, according to Gautama.

 

(Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")

Not many will have the "lack of desire" necessary to attain the cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving, the cessation that gave rise to Gautama's insight into the chain of causation (as above).  Somewhat more likely is the lack of desire necessary to attain the cessation of "doing something" in the body, the experience of activity by virtue of the free placement of attention in the movement of breath --"just sitting".

There's the mundane right view “that has cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving (to new birth)”.  That one is stained with intention.  Then there's the right view which is “[noble], supermundane, cankerless and a component of the way”.  That one is seeing things as they really are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

18 hours ago, S:C said:

 

Your own questions seem to suggest that it is a reflexive circle.
 

 

Yes.

 

18 hours ago, S:C said:

 

However I don’t get the video metaphor, was this a cinnamon muffin (perfect wisdom) and he couldn’t swallow it so he needs milk (right view)? 

 

 

Chocolate cake, I think, but you got the idea.  Buddhism, a big piece of cloying cake, but the "perfect wisdom" to wash it down, not so easy to come by.