My key concern was perhaps not made as clearly as I had hoped:
“Whether or not the word evolved, shouldn’t we return to the earliest known usage and context of the term sammā to understand its meaning authentically — as a function of liberation, not metaphysical elaboration?”
Quoting Gombrich, reifying the concept of sammā-diṭṭhi — turning it into a metaphysical thing rather than a process or function — contradicts the very spirit of the Buddha’s teaching. Furthermore, this parallels the Buddha’s silence on unknowables (avyākata), where he repeatedly emphasized:
“Does this view lead to dispassion, cessation, and awakening? If not, it is not the Dhamma.”
(Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.48; Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.3)
The person who wrote this is not a Pali scholar, rather is a person who has not had any formal training and his concepts, perceptions and knowledge are derived mostly from Mahayana Zen and Sanskrit. I feel, at least in my experience, some persons are more interested in the intellectual side of the Buddha’s teachings, as I believe the writer of the article is. At times I find that people, even intelligent people get stuck on the intellectual academic perspectives (ontology, etymology, etc) without seeing the scope of meaning that the Buddha intended. Perhaps my view is somewhat adolescent in that I seek to know the meaning of a Pali word before I jump to conclusions or base my understanding on the views of anyone other than the Buddha.
My response was an attempt, perhaps an adolescent one, to put forward the idea that to pull single Pali words, or Sanskrit words for that matter, and rely on a singular, isolated meaning, particularly a philosophical meaning derived from incorrect understanding derived from a Sanskrit derivative, is, as the Buddha stated…”a thicket of views.” To consider the meaning of a single Pali word, the context in which it is used is, in my estimation, critical.
Sometimes the various comments of scholars can create “a thicket” of views rather than lend clarity to the fact that, as the Buddha said that if it does not reduce greed, hatred, and delusion, then it is not in alignment with the path—it is not sammā or Dhamma. Am I correct in these assessments, and do you think my reply was overkill? Your direction is always appreciated.
In relation to this post you can see the threads on a site I recently created titled “Theravada Pariyatti.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/pariyatti