http://groups.yahoo....p/message/60091I thought Sarah (Abbott) clarified the issues in the following exchange:
-------
D: Our point of contention is that I think that understanding concept and understanding reality are quite distinct. The difference is not a matter of degree but is a fundamental distinction.
....
S: With respect, I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise. I thought the point of contention here was whether one needed to hear the DhammaVinaya in order to develop satipatthana in this very life.
-------
Now, instead of tidying up, I am going to open another can of worms. Sarah may not have "suggested otherwise" but I have. In my previous post, I said that right intellectual understanding was a degree of Path consciousness - even if only a tiny degree. Certainly there is a "
fundamental distinction" in that path consciousness is supramundane and has nibbana as its object, whereas the other is ordinary and has a concept as its object. However, they both have the rare and wonderful cetasika, samma-ditthi (in a form that only occurs during a Buddha's sasana), and therefore, in that way, their difference is "
a matter of degree."
Having said that, I am really not bothered either way. As far as I am concerned, we can call it a matter of degree or we can call it a fundamental distinction. Sarah went on to say that the main point of contention in this thread has been whether we needed to hear the Dhamma Vinaya in order to develop satipatthana in this very life.
It would suit me to discuss just that, but I'm still not sure: is the question of "
matter of degree" v's "fundamental distinction" important in this thread? Is it central in deciding whether the Dhamma Vinaya has to be heard before satipatthana can occur?
Getting back to my earlier attempt: It tried in the following way to summarise our conversation:
You said there could be no such thing as right conceptual explanation. However, you did concede that some explanations could be more helpful (in illuminating the world) than others.
I said that being helpful in that way would make them right.
You said you saw
two distinctions between right and helpful:
--------------------
D: First, is that "
right" is so closely allied with "
samma" as in samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, etc. of the path. I think it would be a terrible mistake to mix up a "right concept" with the path sammas;
--------------------
The possibility of such a mistake is very remote. When talking about path consciousness, we use "
right" to describe the eight cetasikas that act as path factors. We never use it to describe the objects (nibanna and
conditioned dhammas) they experience.
When talking about Dhamma explanations (e.g., "Volition is a universal cetasika") we say, "That is right" or "That is correct." And sometimes (e.g., "Volition is control over the arising of dhammas") we say, "That is wrong."
I don't see a problem with that use of right and wrong.
---------------------------
D: Otherwise, one would be sorely tempted to think of thinking of Dhamma, reading about Dhamma, analyzing Dhamma as "
techniques" of the "
path."
---------------------------
Neither you nor I regard Dhamma study as a "
technique for enlightenment." To do so would entail belief in a self [that is presently unenlightened and will, one day, become enlightened].
Without regarding right conceptualisation of Dhamma as a technique, we can regard it as a citta that is accompanied by panna and that has a concept (of Dhamma) as its object. In that way, we can understand it to be a factor that leads to enlightenment.
We can, and must, understand (from the Kitagiri and other Suttas) that association with good friends, hearing the true Dhamma and wise consideration of the Dhamma are factors leading to enlightenment. Without those three forms of pariyatti there can be no fourth factor, patipatti (satipatthana), and without pariyatti and patipatti there can be no pativedha (enlightenment).
-----------------------
D: For this reason I don't like the formulation "
right conceptual formulation." I don't think we can stress too strongly that the path is a path of realization, not of cogitation or any other techniques for conjuring understanding from a prescriptive practice.
------------------------
But Dan, cogitation does not have to be a technique. It can be an intellectual realisation and, therefore, pariyatti - a first step towards the eightfold path.
Whenever there is wise consideration of the Dhamma (a factor for enlightenment) there is no idea of a technique for bringing about future enlightenment. There is panna-cetasika, which rightly understands in theory that the present moment is the entire world.
Getting a bit personal here, Dan: I have always assumed you to understand this subtle but vital distinction. However, lately, I have begun to suspect you don't have a firm grip on it after all. You seem to equate Dhamma study with formal practice. That means you are missing the vital distinction between pariyatti and technique.
-----------------------------
D: The sammas of the path are notably different from conceptual understandings
------------------------------
Different, yes, but right understandings all the same. Dhammas can be understood directly or indirectly. In both cases it is the same cetasika - panna (
samma-ditthi) - that does the understanding. Is the "
notable difference" a suddenly occurring one? Remember the gradual training (Kitagiri Sutta MN 70). I imagine that intellectual understanding develops to an extent that is way beyond anything we are currently used to. At that stage, direct understanding will flow almost seamlessly, as a natural progression.
----------------------------------------
D: and do not arise from conceptual understandings,
-----------------------------------------
It is obvious to me that greater understandings develop from lesser understandings. Why do you find that so unacceptable?
------------
<. . .>
D: Second, a particular explanation can be helpful to a particular person at a particular time but be the cause for a different person to stumble on a different occasion. Is that explanation right, or is it wrong? I'd say that it was wrong but helpful to the first person; and wrong as well as unhelpful to the second person.
------------
I can see why you might not want to call a concept right (because ultimately it has no right or wrong characteristics), but I can't see why you are calling all concepts wrong.
Moving on: You then wrote something that I misread, and thereby sidetracked the discussion. You wrote:
-----------------------------------------
2. I don't believe that "right conceptualization" is a condition for samma-ditthi. However, I do think conceptualization plays a role in defining the limits to how deep insight can go.
-----------------------------------------
I took "
defining the limits" to mean, "
extending the range" and so I wrote:
QUOTE
Here again, to the uninformed observer, the second sentence seems to contradict the first. Doesn't 'plays a role in' mean the same as 'is a condition for?'
----------------
You replied:
---------------------
D: No, no. The subsiding of clinging to a conceptual formulation (i.e., the non-arising of ditthi) is indeed a condition for samma-ditthi. But I don't see the building of detailed and elaborate conceptual models and then the subsequent clinging to the models as "
right conceptualizations" that are necessary precursors of samma-ditthi (i.e., as part of the path) as helpful or desirable. More of a hindrance. The building of thicker and thicker conceptualizations under the guise of "
development of Right Understanding via Right Cogitation and Intellectualization" assigns an extra factor into the path (
samma-papanca) and makes it more difficult to see rightly (
samma-ditthi).
-------------
Whew, this is heavy going! Or is it just me? Or is it just a matter of your not seeing the distinction between pariyatti and technique?
---------------------
D: The "
plays a role in defining limits" does not mean "
is a condition for." I think everyone who pops into dsg and participates in the discussions has developed a degree of samma-ditthi through satipatthana.
---------------------
Whoa there! Before, you were saying that satipatthana could occur outside a Buddha's dispensation. I thought that was an understandable misconception, considering that there have been so many great thinkers throughout history. Now you are saying satipatthana is commonplace. You are saying we have all experienced satipatthana. (!) You are saying that at various times in all of our pasts panna has arisen to directly know a paramattha dhamma. (!)
But we DSG people can't even agree on what a paramattha dhamma is - or even whether there is such a thing as a paramattha dhamma! What evidence is there that we have had profound insights despite our abysmal ignorance?
-------------------------------
D: Samma-ditthi arises and passes away whether there is Buddhist cogitation about it beforehand or not. Then, there are two questions: (1) how deep was the understanding?
-------------------------------
It is very deep! Direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas is profound - the exclusive domain of the wise.
-------------------------------------
D: (2) what happened in the aftermath of the understanding? My working hypothesis is that these two questions play off one another. If a particular conceptualization is firmly held to and grasped because of years of accumulated habit and expectation and speculation about it, then clinging to that conceptualization (i.e., ditthi) is more likely to rush in and co-opt the nascent understanding, remaking it in the ditthi image.
One way this could play out is as follows. Suppose someone thinks:
"
The arising of samma-ditthi depends on having a detailed theoretical knowledge first. Samma-ditthi then arises out of samma-papanca in some mysterious way that I will never be able to understand because satipatthana is incredibly deep, and I can't really hope to experience it in this lifetime."
If someone were to hold such an opinion, I would think that development of understanding would be virtually precluded because any time understanding did arise, it would immediately be swamped by doubt and ditthi.
---------------
Dan, that sounds to me like, "Beware the Dhamma-Vinaya!"
It really isn't necessary to equate thinking (which can be kusala or akusala) with papanca (which is always akusala).
----------------------
D: Or, suppose if someone thinks:
"
The arising of kusala is beyond the control of Self. God alone is the author of kusala."
When a moment of understanding arose, ditthi would rush in, prompting "Kusala is not-self. Praise God!" Clinging to Self would be diminished, but insight to the level of "sabbe dhammaa anatta" would be virtually precluded.
-----------------------
I won't comment on what might happen if an eternity-believer were to experience satipatthana because I don't agree that could ever happen. I don't believe there could be a sudden jump from strong eternity view to right view at the level of satipatthana. (Not in a path that the Buddha described as "gradual.")
-------------
KH: The term '
right conceptualisation' is a new one that seems to have originated in this DSG thread. I assume it is same as the more commonly used, '
right intellectual understanding.' The only difference might be that it refers to the citta as a whole more than to jus panna-cetasika.
To my mind, '
right conceptualisation' must ultimately refer to any mind-door citta that has panna (that at least knows the difference between concepts and realities) as one of its cetasikas and that has a concept as its object. The Eightfold Path, also, is a mind-door citta that has panna as one of its cetasikas, but it has nibbana as its object. Surely, therefore, right conceptualisation can be seen as a degree of Path consciousness. (?)
D: I don't think this makes any sense, Ken. The characterization of a path moment as samma or miccha does not depend on the object that is cognized. It depends on the mode of cognition (e.g., accompanied by lobha, or accompanied by the samma path factors, etc.).
--------------
That's right, it doesn't depend on the object cognised, it depends on the presence or absence of panna. Panna with nibbana as object is a factor of the eightfold path. Panna with a conditioned dhamma as object is a factor of the mundane (five-or-sixfold) path. Panna with a concept of dhammas as object is a factor of the intellectual path (pariyatti).
----------------
KH: Admittedly, it would be a tiny degree of Path consciousness, but, even so, one that was precious and very difficult to obtain. Just look at all the hard working Dhamma students here at DSG. With so much disagreement over the basic concepts, there would, at most, be a small number of us who had attained the stage of Right Conceptualisation. :-)
D: You are just making stuff up about "
Right Conceptualization," aren't you! There's not a word about it in the Tipitaka. I only read about samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, samma-samadhi, samma-sati. Nothing about samma-papanca or samma-panyati! But so much effort to build a theory to accomodate these new sammas...
------------------
Putting aside made-up theories of "[i]right conceptualisation,[i]" what is your opinion on samma-ditthi arising to take a concept as its object? When the Buddha spoke about things hitherto unknown - dukkha and the five khandhas - did his audience understand his words? Was there, at such times, samma-ditthi with concepts as object? You have described something like that to Ken O, but you made it sound more like a dangerous wrong view that a profound step towards enlightenment.
Ken H