This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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".
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.
(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)
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.
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.
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 Kraus e 11:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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:
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.
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's definitely not NPOV to refer to them as "deviant".
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 Kraus e 06:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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".
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.
(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)
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.
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.
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 Kraus e 11:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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:
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.
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's definitely not NPOV to refer to them as "deviant".
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 Kraus e 06:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)