Reply To: How the Meanings Got Lost and How to Interpret

#51014
skywander
Participant

Thank you for your replies, I appreciate your effort. I am aware that what I am asking is something that probably cannot really be answered, nevertheless I wanted to know your opinions on the matter.

1 So whoever spoke a perfect Magadhi Prakrit at that time also understood all three Sutta interpretations – Uddēsa, Niddēsa, Paṭiniddēsa completely with all its keys.
2 How is an Arahant, and only an Arahant, able to extract the true meaning from the remaining original scriptures

2 The “the keys to interpret the texts” are in the Tipitaka. However, those “keys” are not apparent to anyone else but Ariyas.

I understand and agree with both points.

  1. First of all there’s the issue of the language Magadhi Prakrit. As everything else, it kept changing, evolving, and the language of the Pali Canon was eventually only used in the context of Buddhism teaching. This happened in Sri Lanka, as you said, as well as in all India – according experts.
  2. To fully understand the teachings one needs to realize them, experience them, not just get an intellectual picture. So, I agree, that not matter how the teaching are preserved, if there are no arahants in the world, there is not going to be a complete understanding of them in the world.

Now, the fact that the teachings have been degraded, is something to be expected, and told by the Buddha. There is one thing I wasn’t able to convey in my original posts: I was concerned about the key meaning of the fundamentals of the teaching. The basics like anicca, dukkha, anatta – and not supramundane topics.

I agree with you both that until one is not an arahant one does not even really comprehend the three marks, because if one fully comprehends them one gets disenchanted by the world, stop acting due ignorance, remove ignorance, and finally attain arahanthood. But at the same time, let’s be realistic, I am a puthujjana: if somebody, ariya or not, tells me “anicca is impermanence“, I can grasp the meaning of anicca, even without really understanding its consequences. In the same way, if somebody, ariya or not, tells me “anicca is the impossibility for sustaining our experience according to our wishes“, I can grasp the meaning of anicca, even without really understanding its consequences. In this case, anicca, the Abhidhamma has properly preserved its meaning. So, my questions was, how is that this is not the case for other fundamental key terms?

For example, the following comment “I do not understand how was not possible to preserve the patiniddesa. It is not like Buddha partake in developing an extense philosophy. .” does not make sense.

P.S. For example, if one starts with the wrong idea that “Anapanasati” is “breath meditation” then no matter how many suttas they read, they will NEVER make any progress.

Lal, I think you missunderstood what I was trying to say. Buddha talked about the handful of leaves for helping people to build the raft and get out. If he intended to fully explain the universe, and talked about dozens or hundreds of handful of leaves, there would be hundred times more concepts. That is what I meant by not extense – specially, if one is concerned on the basics like the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and not on more advanced topics like how thoughts arise in the citta, how kalapas interact, and stuff like that.

One thing is the deep of Buddha’s teaching like the four noble truths, which for most of us will take not lives, but eons, to digest and realize. Quite another is the quantity of the key terms essential to get a proper picture of the eight fold path. In the past two weeks I have been reading a lot of the website, mostly PS and related sections, taking notes. Most of the notes are on the different usages of the different terms, and how identify the proper meaning depending on the context where they are found – I am trying to make a cheatsheet for when reading the suttas.

So, my question was just what reasons could be imagined for explaining that in the Pali canon, for basic terms like anatta, viññana, namarupa, salayatana, are not properly defined depending on the different contexts where they are found, and so. This is something you do in this website, and I assume it is not in the cannon because there are a lot of Theras who have thoroughly studied the cannon and their understanding of such terms doesn’t see.

As you know, there are a lot of Theras, almost all of them!, who read Anapanasati as mere breath meditation. They got this interpretation by reading the Suttas and commentaries with full faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Shanga. Yet, what a big miss understanding. It is tragic. And this tragedy the source of my question… from my ignorance I can’t help but think that a big deal of missunderstandings could have been easily avoided if the keys to understand the Canon were obvious even for the ignorant. You explained properly in few words

Āna” is taking in. “Assa” is the same as “āna”, and “passa” is the same as “āpāna”. When cleaning the room, the child needs to get rid of the clutter (passa) but also can take in (assa) something like a flower vase to make the room look more pleasant or to take in a chair that can be useful. So, one does not throw away everything or take in everything. One must be selective in taking in “good things” and throwing away “bad things.” That is where mindfulness comes in. That cannot be done with breath.

This were just my thoughts. _/|\_

However, meditation is NOT restricted to “formal meditation,”

Yes, by all-day meditation, I meant what I try to do since I wake up until I go to sleep.

1 user thanked author for this post.