[Buddha-l] Re: there he goes again (samharris)

[L.S. Cousins]

Joy,

I wrote:
>  >The is precisely one discourse (out of thousands) which mentions this 
>>and the main point of that discourse is that both are of great value. 
>>We do not know if the discourse is given because there is some 
>>disagreement between the two or because the author of that discourse 
>>wanted to head off the possibility. But the latter seems more likely, 
>>given the lack of supporting evidence.

You responded:
>The one, if it is exceptional and has been integrated in the canon, 
>has more weight in my eyes than the many, especially if it relates a 
>conflict.

Well, that's a common view. Clearly, if one adopts it, one will 
inevitably find many inconsistencies.

>This one discourse seems to be AN 6.46 Cunda Sutta:
>
>"Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: `Though we 
>ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who 
>are meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world 
>who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbaana). 
>"And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: `Though we 
>ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are 
>Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the 
>world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult 
>subject."
>
>What would this opposition be about if the jhaanas  were a process 
>of developing mindfulness AND clear comprehension?

What it says it is. On the one hand, meditators (jhaayins) i.e. those 
with personal experience of nibbaana and on the other hand 
researchers into dhamma. To my mind, that would be those developing 
the abhidhamma teachings.

If you really think that the opposition is between jhaana and 
vipassanaa, then the sutta is claiming that those who practise jhaana 
attain nibbaana and those who practise vipassanaa simply understand 
subtle points. This doesn't seem likely to me.

In fact, this discourse is attributed to Saariputta's brother 
Mahaacunda, not to the Buddha and is in an unusual location. This 
suggests to me that it probably dates from a time after the Buddha 
when specialization has started to develop. Note that a second 
discourse also attributed to the same elder and in the same location 
discusses possible defilements arising from claims made about one's 
knowledge or about one's practice or about both of these. I think 
this is the same opposition.

>Why the opposition? Or is the view that the jhaanas  are a process 
>of developing mindfulness AND clear comprehension a sort of 
>compromise following the opposition that Anguttara Nikaya 6.46 
>mentions?

Everything suggests that the formulae for the jhaanas go back to the 
beginnings of Buddhism.

>  In my student experience, and I even find it back in Buddhadasa 
>teachings, there is a distinction between the jhanas and vipassana. 
>Buddhadasa somewhere suggests to condense the various jhana steps 
>into one and to pass on to vipassana.

Buddhadaasa was himself a Samatha meditator, but seems to have 
recommended Vipassanaa as a kind of second best approach for those 
without much time.

>Could it be that right from the start, there was a clear opposition 
>or difference of approach or accentuation in early Buddhism between 
>Jhaayins and Dhammayoga bikkhus? Where e.g. Sariputta and 
>Maha-Moggallana represent the analytical wisdom approach?

I take it from the beginning Buddhism emphasized the integration of 
both wisdom and concentration.

Lance Cousins