I am talking about being intellectually wrong, as in saying something which is not true.
Claiming that sotapannas can never have wrong view about anything is a misinterpretation, and it leads to claiming that a sotapanna can never say anything that would turn out to be wrong, and that sotapannas could never contradict each other on any topic.
Anyway my point is that anyone who can’t even contemplate the possibility of being wrong is surely creating trouble for themselves. Perhaps this merits some reflection?
I more or less agree with this. clinging to scriptures is bad, and the kalama sutta even says dont believe something just becuz your religious texts say so. Even Classical Theravada Buddhist scholars like Phra Payutto admit the Theravada texts are probably not 100% correct.
But it is also true that you should look at what is most likely to be true when discerning which things to follow. What is more likely to be true? A commentary or explanation from a few hundred years after the Buddha died from established scholar monks of the time who lived in a similar-ish time and culture? Or some view that you or someone else in the 21st century in some Western christian country with no background of the culture of ancient india just made up? clinging to views is bad, but so is excessive arrogance to think that you or someone like you living in the 21st century and growing up in a modern and probably not even indian or asian society could interpret the texts better than the historic commentaters.
And clinging applies to everything, clinging to EBT or secular Buddhist views are also bad. even clinging to Buddhism is bad. you can accept something without clinging to it.
Ahh. Actually miccha-ditthi in the Buddhist sense is about deeply held views related to the nature of samsara, to the khandhas- and all revolving around the belief in a self and permenance. It is not about black holes and DNA and krebs cycle.
These four, O Monks, are distortions of perception, distortions of thought distortions of view…
Sensing no change in the changing, Sensing pleasure in suffering, Assuming “self” where there’s no self, Sensing the un-lovely as lovely — Gone astray with wrong views, beings Mis-perceive with distorted minds. Bound in the bondage of Mara, Those people are far from safety. They’re beings that go on flowing: Going again from death to birth. But when in the world of darkness Buddhas arise to make things bright, They present this profound teaching Which brings suffering to an end. When those with wisdom have heard this, They recuperate their right mind: They see change in what is changing, Suffering where there’s suffering, “Non-self” in what is without self, They see the un-lovely as such**. By this acceptance of right view, They overcome all suffering**.
Very well then we agree that even sotapannas can be wrong about stuff, so everyone should remain prudent.
About a thousand years would be more accurate
I am not used to rejecting ideas based on the ethnicity of the person proposing them. I would tend to consider that it’s somewhat of a shaky ground to base one’s understanding of right view on.
But since we are here, I am curious how you guys explain suttas such as AN 8.51, which states that the True Dhamma would only last for 500 years.
Which is the most likely explanation?
The Buddha was wrong
The sutta is corrupted
The True Dhamma indeed did not last for more than 500 years and we are now dealing with a patched up version (both Classical Theravada and EBT, and whatever else)
The Commentary clarifies that because the Buddha laid down the 8 garuka dhammas the sasana could be extended to 5000 years.
And also the councils played their part in extending it.
If this is true then why did the Buddha not say so? Because that’s very confusing now, we have the commentary basically negating what the sutta says. Anyway, I assume there’s no point discussing this either.
The thing is that nobody who wrongfully clings to their views believes them to actually be wrong view, so it’s not enough to express belief that it is right view than one is clinging to, to declare oneself free from error. This sounds self-evident, and yet here we are.
Can we at least agree that prudence is a good thing?
I add some more about the vipallasa.
There are three types: sanna-vipallasa (perversion of
perception), citta-vipallasa (perversion of consciousness) and
ditthi-vipallasa (perversion of view).
The first two are very common and arise with
with any akusala citta .
The last (ditthi-vipallasa) is the same as wrong view. The sotapanna has eradicated ditthi-vipallasa but may still have the other two types.
@Sekha , I had split the previous topic because it drifted into a new and interesting conversation.
We enjoy your questions and answers.
I’m trying to keep the flow going by “splitting and closing.” The previous post will be reopen in a week (if I remember). We don’t want topics to drag out too far, and drift into new ones, but just keep talking and we will curate the splits…
It is common to confuse ignorance with wrong view. We are talking about wrong view as explained by the commentaries and abhidhamma and directly refers to the 3 lower fetters. But these are also mentioned in the Suttas as well.
Here is a list from Wikipedia.
Lists of fetters
Sutta Pitaka’s list of ten fetters
The Pali canon’s Sutta Pitaka identifies ten “fetters of becoming”:[3]
As indicated in the adjacent table, throughout the Sutta Pitaka, the first five fetters are referred to as “lower fetters” (orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni) and are eradicated upon becoming a non-returner; and, the last five fetters are referred to as “higher fetters” (uddhambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni), eradicated by an arahant.[15]
Three fetters
Both the Saṅgīti Sutta (DN 33) and the Dhammasaṅgaṇi (Dhs. 1002-1006) refer to the “three fetters” as the first three in the aforementioned Sutta Pitaka list of ten:
Good householder, it’s right that a stream-enter is not capable to act on basic wrong view deliberatly, meaning that he is void of all notions of ingratitude found in the different aspects of wrong view, such as acting on “there are no parents, techer, giver”, “no fruits of deeds”, “no Sublime”… in short: with notions of demand, “rights”.
Possessed by right view he is no more capable to act grave wrong, no more able to head downwardly and fit to “clean” smaller fault by himself.
How ever, he’s still not immune of falling apart in regard of right view as a factor of the path.
I would say this is the most likely case. I will admit I am not a classical theravada purist, I consider classical theravada to be the “best we have”, but not truly the pure dhamma as practiced in the Buddha’s time.
But just like how historians and scientists are almost never 100% sure about their conclusions due to limitations/holes in available evidence, it is still worth studying the conclusions because it is still probably “more right” than someone who just makes up an explanation based on logical conjecture. Which is why Classical theravada is still worth studying/practicing because dont let the perfect get in the way of the good.
No many commentaries date just a few or several hundred years after the Buddha. And either way, it doesnt matter. 100, 700, or 1000. Just by shear chance, it is far more likely to be an accurate interpretation than something someone in the modern world just makes up.
I think similar what other people writes, the right view on ariyas should be understood according the eradicated fetters. This sound logical because while a fetter is not eradicated, there is attachment and also an space for wrong ideas, errors, etcetera. This is how ignorance works.
The lists of wrong and right views are many inside the sources, and sometimes contains things related with other realms and things which are impossible to check for most ariyas, except arhants. As far I understand, the point is that after stream.entry the certainty in the Buddha teaching is established, and then the knowledge and faith are joined.
This makes impossible to believe a deviate thing despite the doubts and errors exists. This wouldn’t be properly a “wrong view” while it doesn’t have the potentiality to lose the Path. This would be the main point despite being a subjective issue: because for any person, a wrong idea could become a wrong view able to lose the Path while for other person no. However, difference in the case of ariyas is this possibility doesn’t exists.
Doubts and errors are part of the Path until arhanthood. We can check many conversations inside the Suttas between arhants and ariyas and how many times appears the doubts and also answers like “Don’t say that, my friend”, showing they have doubts and wrong ideas in mind. In example:
"Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “…is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
AN 4.174
acquisiton of Right View works like a potentiality to discern the Path, working more in this sense:
"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one’s right view.
DN.55
As you writes, it is frequent seeing people who believe ariyas should be like a machine of knowledge, and whatever issue they could ignore on Dhama or they could think in another way, it would be a proof they are not ariyas. This idea is simplistic as we check inside the sources.
How about people who come to conclusions based on their personal experience? Isn’t that what the Buddha wanted us to do?
I certainly don’t disagree with that. What I disagree with is when people say things akin to “only classical Theravada is true and nothing else”. I am in favor of peaceful and respectful coexistence and refraining from judgemental attitudes towards one another, and I think classical Theravadins need to head into that direction, and that they are harming themselves every time they refer to others with pejorative sobriquets (which by contrast I have never seen “EBT people” do).
The belief of the Mahavihara sect in the 5th century (which, if I understand properly what has been told to me earlier, should be accepted uncritically in order to be able to call oneself a true classical Theravadin) was apparently that their commentaries dated back to the first council. Those people were not omniscient and were certainly not immune to errors, wrong views and repeating blind beliefs. Since it seems quite likely that they overstated the trustworthiness of their commentaries and that common sense should favor the hypothesis that those commentaries emerged when writing started being used, should we really believe (as some “classical Theravadins” would insist) that those commentaries dated back to the first council? Wouldn’t we be putting ourselves in the very situation which is described at MN 95
Suppose there were a row of blind men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn’t see, the middle one doesn’t see, the last one doesn’t see. In the same way, the statement of the brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men, as it were: the first one doesn’t see, the middle one doesn’t see, the last one doesn’t see. So what do you think, Bharadvaja: this being the case, doesn’t the conviction of the brahmans turn out to be groundless?"
The thing with many Buddhists nowadays is that they seem to think that they are immune to the sort of mistakes that are described in the suttas, only because back in the days they were only ascribed to non-Buddhists, as if that meant a Buddhist can never make the same mistake. Unfortunately it tends to end in a barrage of denial and ad hominems when an opportunity for questioning one’s assumptions and the assumptions of people in the past arises, just like suttas like MN 95 encourage us to do.
I don’t think the argument that the opinion of people who lived in the past is more trustworthy than the opinion of anyone alive today really stands to logic. For example, this view does not account for the fact that it has been believed for centuries that liberation is not possible anymore, that the goal of meditation has somehow become unreachable.
That’s fine, i never said it wasnt. That’s how you weed out the (probable) inaccuracies in the texts.
I agree with this. like i said im not a classical theravada purist. I think all early texts, even ones from non-theravada schools like Sthaviravāda, Mahīśāsaka, Sarvāstivāda have some merit to them. The only ones that kinda dont are mahayana texts, but that is just another beast entirely.
absolutely, which again, is why i dont think classical theravada texts are 100% right.
I think it does actually, depending on how close they are to the source. This doesnt only apply to time either, someone who reads a modern diary of someone in Syria would have a better understanding of what the person is talking about and meant if they are from Syria or a nearby middle eastern country with a similar culture and experience than someone who reads the same text and lived and grew up in Japan or Brazil or the US. In the same way somebody who grew up in 5th century CE India or sri lanka would probably have a stronger understanding of the texts that are supposed to come from 5-6th century BCE India than someone who grew up in 20th century Australia. Again, i dont think they are 100% right, and I’m not saying give the commentaries divine authority like its the God-given Bible or something. But the views portrayed in the commentaries should be considered and given more weight.
There are many people of different faiths who will say they are enlightened but disregard the texts. Some are even claimers of the Theravada Tradition, Like Daniel Ingram who says that an Arahant (which he claims to be) “can have hot sex and smoke crack”.
By taking such extremes from personal experience with disregard to the ancient texts (road map), one can surely lose their way. Please be careful.
The Partial Theravadans are generally lacking scholar nature, vassa with proper teachers, and they distrust the real scholars. Any Dhammacariya or Alankhara in Myanmar let alone an Abhivamsas or Tipitaka Sayadaws can effortlessly “dance circles” around any western PhD, or monk. Besides a skill in English, who is even someone like Bhikkhu Bodhi compared to them? Even if he could stand a fighting chance. How many are like him? Do you think Ajhan Sujato is a scholar who has even a fraction of the knowledge of those I listed? Ajahn Anaylayo? Who else. Partial Theravadans are their own teachers and that is where the movement started… ehem… by their own unchaperoned self guided selves.
After all of that, then we talk about “personal experience”… based on what litmus test?
Sorry. It is just plain disrespect to the senior elders of past and present and soon to be future when one is a “Partial-Theravada”. What more can be said about one who is outspoken about these matters?
Bhante, thank you for engaging the points raised earlier, as it allows for a real conversation to take place.
I am trying to figure out what is the intended message here. Is this an argument against using one’s personal experience to understand the Dhamma?
It seems that Mr Ingram is speaking in favor of being unvirtuous. The takeaway from this example may just be that it is dangerous to be oneself unvirtuous and to speak praise of being unvirtuous?
Indeed no one should get in a car driven by a drunk driver, but it would seem that it does not necessarily follow from this observation that no one should ever get into any car.
I don’t understand why any of those distinguished scholars should “dance circles” around anyone, unless they would be learning the Dhamma for the sake of winning debates, in which case they would be acting for their own long-term harm and suffering (MN 22).
Why should anyone “fight” with anyone else? This presupposes a hardened stance and a complete inability to listen to a different opinion.
Well I don’t think this is entirely true. I think some monks followed the traditional training and at some point realized that there were too many inconsistencies that most traditionalists refuse to even acknowledge, and they figured that they would rather think for themselves than merely throw their critical sense to the garbage as they are told.
Perhaps some of them were born in another religion and have already had to do the work of questioning the tradition they had accepted since childhood simply because they were told to do so and because if they wouldn’t have, it would have been deemed equivalent to insulting some elders of that religion, who have actually been repeating the same mistakes for millenias. Maybe this is a blind spot for some of those respected scholars, as I doubt that critical thinking is really part of the traditional curriculum, or is it?
What evidence is there that “the senior elders” cannot make mistakes? If they feel personally offended by people honestly seeking the truth for themselves, then maybe they have some work left to do with that, and if they aren’t in the first place, then there is no issue here. Some people follow the advice given in the suttas and prefer thinking and exploring for themselves rather than blindly following the opinions of the traditionalists out of fear of offending them. I see no reason to send them anathemas.
You are wrongly quoting and twisting my words with your statements. Let it discredit your integrity.
For those who were confused by your wrong quotes.
“Can dance circles”
"not have a “fighting chance”
is meant to explain that the traditional scholar monks are much smarter by a huge factor to the best westerners. You know this, misrepresented me and others now know this too. Misrepresentation and quote-twisting seems to be a habit of yours, even with the quotes of The Buddha.
Please remember whose house you are visiting.
This seems to explain your view as an EBTer or a Partial Theravadan. (pTh’er). I’m not sure why you are here.
For those who want to be convinced EBT as a solution to your own personal doubts, suttacentral is a better place to discuss these items. This group is for the like minded who want to avoid the troubles of endless debate found in the other groups.
Back to the topic:
Daniel Ingram is one extreme. ex-ven Nyanavira, the suicide monk, is a more subtle version of upakilesa for enlightenment.
Back to the real real topic… sotapanas cannot have wrong view.
The cittas with wrong view do not exist and therefore do not arise in sotapannas. We do not need to qualify our statements “according to abhidhamma” or “according to classical Theravada”. This is a Classical Theravada group and we speak in this language.
