sujatoBhante wrote:
11days ago
The text [MN 125 as carefully constructed and preserved by the Buddha, oral reciters in Theravāda] is corrupt, see my notes and Analayo’s essay.
https://suttacentral.net/mn125/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=main¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin 26
...
I think you’ll find it in Analayo’s Comparative Studies of the Majjhima. Not sure if he’s done anything else on this passage. It’s an interesting passage, it’s just that it’s hard to draw any solid conclusions when the underlying text is so uncertain.
To me the central point is that this is a teaching to an otherwise unknown novice, who clearly is not confident in his own understanding. There’s really no chance that the Buddha would use such an instance to introduce a new formulation rather than relying on his standard teachings.
Frankk response
One fraud standing on the shoulders of another fraud.
Here I show the fallacious reasoning:
Sujato's vitakka redefinition is incoherent not just in MN 125, but in all the other major sutta passages illuminating the meaning of vitakka in first jhāna, such as MN 78, MN 19, MN 20, which Sujato refuses to even attempt to explain. Details here:
No comments:
Post a Comment