Skip to main content

What B.Analayo says about V&V in MN 19, 78, 125

Comments

  1. I've long shared your frustration with Analayo's highly problematic scholarship on meditation. When I collaborated with him on the translation of the Madhyama-agama, I thought that the Chinese side of things, coupled with what we've learned in the Pali suttas, would make his position on V&V untenable. I said, "it's now clear that V&V cannot mean what the Visuddhimagga tells us." And much to my astonishment, he drew a completely opposite conclusion and said that the comparative work makes his position stronger!
    I suspect that his intransigent opinion on this matter has to do with another worrying trend in Buddhism. There are groups I ran into that advocated a pure cerebral/reflective approach to the Dhamma that does away with meditation altogether. Often, these groups cite the questionable Chinese Xushen-daofa jing in the Samyukta-agama on the issue of "deliverance via discernment/wisdom (panna-vimutti)," which according to the sutta means full liberation without any jhanic foundation.
    Perhaps Analayo thought that any attempt at "sneaking the activity of thought into jhanas" is tantamount to the abovementioned jhana-undermining attempt? He therefore over-corrects by adamantly precludes the possibility of wholesome thoughts in first jhana?
    I agree that most people self-talk in such a way as being little more than being mired in restlessness and philosophizing. But the first jhana type of inner narrative or framed guidance (vitakka) is vastly different. It is done with mindfulness (of clear frame, goal, application of the right methods), systematicity (so that thoughts are not distractive, but assiduously working toward the concerted goal of renunciation and calm and so forth). Such skill of wholesome vitakka is generally only possible after the practitioner has meticulously trained in speech (such as truthful and deliberate speech), as is the case with how the Buddha trained his disciples in a gradual manner. Without this foundation, the way people talk to themselves internally is generally untrustworthy, unsystematic, and unwholesome.
    Given how tenuous, tendentious, and self-contradictory Analayo's scholarly arguments have been, this is the only non-malicious intention I can come up with to ascribe to him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi William,
    I've commmented and started a discussion topic in the forum here:
    http://fm.lucid24.org/index.php?topic=15.0

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex