Internal
4๐☸ → STED → EBT , LBTalso
telephone: game of broken telephone, chinese whispers, ๐๐
Re: Sutta method and Abhidhamma method
Post by frank k » Fri May 26, 2023 1:46 am
I appreciate that you took the time to acknowledge and respond, but this doesn't really explain why you think the two types of jhฤna vism. and the commentaries talk about are the same as the jhฤna and satipatthฤna are described in MN 111, MN 125, MN 119.
I'm all for people wanting to support their flavor of Buddhism, whether mahฤyana, theravada abhidhamma, any other abhidharma, visuddhimagga, as long as they're honest about the real differences between them.
If one is going to claim their LBT flavor of Buddhism is the legitimate word of Buddha that doesn't contradict EBT, and if one doesn't agree there are real differences, one should be able to at least openly disclose a published, detailed audit explaining how, why, and refuting the claims from an EBT sutta based examination showing clear contradiction.
External
Why the fuss over LBT and EBT versions of jhฤna? Aren't they both 99% Buddha's definition?
Forum discussion
Re: Sutta method and Abhidhamma method
Post by frank k » Fri May 26, 2023 1:46 am
I appreciate that you took the time to acknowledge and respond, but this doesn't really explain why you think the two types of jhฤna vism. and the commentaries talk about are the same as the jhฤna and satipatthฤna are described in MN 111, MN 125, MN 119.
I'm all for people wanting to support their flavor of Buddhism, whether mahฤyana, theravada abhidhamma, any other abhidharma, visuddhimagga, as long as they're honest about the real differences between them.
If one is going to claim their LBT flavor of Buddhism is the legitimate word of Buddha that doesn't contradict EBT, and if one doesn't agree there are real differences, one should be able to at least openly disclose a published, detailed audit explaining how, why, and refuting the claims from an EBT sutta based examination showing clear contradiction.
Re: EBT-People Don't Have a Base. (An Evidence)
Post by frank k » Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:09 am
And anyone who read mahฤyana doctrines and vajrayana texts all know they're also all completely coherent and consistent with the EBT and there are no contradictions.
According to Mahayana, one month after the first council, Ananda convened another secret council where all the mahayana disciples recited the mayahana texts and confirmed they were the genuine word of the Buddha.
The moral of the story is, everyone wants to believe they have the authentic lineage preserving the true word of the buddha. It's up to each of us to do our own homework, audit those claims and verify that they're coherent and consistent.
You want to believe Vism. and Mula Atthaka and Tika and Petakopadesa are all ancient sanghas with no contradicitons, but it doesn't take that much digging around to see it's just a web of deceit and an empty claim.
Re: Sutta method and Abhidhamma method
Post by frank k » Fri May 26, 2023 2:07 am
from a thread about a year ago of RobertK and I attempting to cover the same ground
viewtopic.php?p=675147#p675147
Still waiting for your reply Robert. (and Ven. Dhammanando, and any other Abhidhamma expert)
Your silence is going to be taken as an acknowledgment that you've read the links and confirmed that:
1) The Ab Vibhanga 12 third jhฤna gloss contradicts Aแนญแนญhakathฤ AN 5.28, DN 2 jhฤna formula gloss which says kฤya body is flesh and blood. Ab Vb 12 says kฤya is mind only, not physical at all.
2) Vism. does a confusing and poor job of trying to explain how (1) is not a contradiction.
3) Petakopadesa, which is part of the tipitaka, obviously didn't get the same memo as Buddhaghosa with the time machine and the secret decoder ring where the Buddha confusingly really meant "mind only", when he says "body", he meant "not thinking" when he said "thinking", etc. In other words, Petakopadesa glosses the jhฤna formula taking the Buddha's words at face value, body = physical body, thinking = thinking, etc. So if Vism. is right and "there is no contradiction" between sutta (jhฤna involves body) and abhidhamma (jhฤna is mind only), then why did the "ancient Sangha" that composed Pe differ from the ancient sangha that composed Vism.?
I've only presented the very clear and easy to see contradiction with 'kฤya' in the 4 jhฤnas. There are many more contradictions with vitakka, rลซpa, and the frozen appana state that only happens in Vism. redefinition of jhฤna, and not in EBT sutta, not in Petakopadesa, and not in Vimuttimagga (which uses an earlier Abhihdhamma).
Another very easy and clear cut contradiction. Abhidhamma gloss of vitakka and vicฤra in first jhฤna includes samma sankappo, which would allow for linguistic thinking of renunciation, good will, etc. in first jhฤna, whereas Vism. redefined first jhฤna does not allow for any kind of linguistic or free subverbal mental processing while in appanฤ samฤdhi. Vism. contradicts canonical Abhidhamma in vitakka and vicara in first jhฤna.
Can you at least reply and acknowledge you've seen these contradictions for yourself?
Every Buddhist has their own reasons for which sect they gravitate towards, but at least we should be honest with ourselves about how things really are. Abhidhamma contradicts the suttas in some very important doctrinal points. If you think the composers of the Abhidhamma made a better product than the Buddha's suttas, fine, but be honest about what it is. You can't look at the very clear and obvious evidence of contradictions and pretend the Buddha wrote both the Abhidhamma and sutta pitaka.
Comments
Post a Comment