User talk:Sacca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Talk Pages

Please do not blank the talk pages. If you are having trouble viewing the whole page, try clicking "edit" which appears at the top of each section heading.

Also, if you want to start a new section, just click the tab marked "+" which appears at the top of each page.

Also, sign your messages with four '~', this will automatically add your signature.--DCAnderson 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it's difficult if the page is just too long, and my browser cannot read the whole page.--Sacca 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article on the two "Fourth Buddhist Councils"

Howdy - Just want to thank you for the well done article on The Fourth Buddhist Councils and for adding such information to the general Buddhist Councils article as well. Definitely fills a gap in the wiki knowledge. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! LarryR 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sacca, so it was you who wrote the article on the Fourth Buddhist Councils ! Where on earth do you get the idea that Mahayana people were involved ? The Sarvastivadin account of that council make no mention of Mahayana whatsoever.--Stephen Hodge 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that you now accept that the Kanishkan Council has nothing to do with Mahayana. I've got so many tasks pending, but I might get around to re-writing that section. As for your questions, 1) Yes, most most Mahayana sources recognize the occurence of the Kanishkan Council, but the whole Council thing is not regarded as very interesting by Mahayana sources. 2) No, there is no evidence that the Kanishkan Council led to the arising of Mahayana. 3) While it is true that there were centres of Mahayana in the Gandhara-Kashmir area, there is a lot of textual evidence that points to the Deccan (Andhra) as a key centre of Mahayana development. In one sutra, the Buddha says that is why he always praises the South.--Stephen Hodge 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot for the email

Hi there Sacca, You made a lot of good and interesting points- I cannot reply to them all, but as a general rule, I am glad that you have met someone who has some realisation - it makes it much easier to understand the legitimacy of a tradition. I have been fortunate enough to meet individuals from both the Theravada tradition and the Indo-Tibetan traditions who have clearly demonstrated their capabilities- it is a great aid to one's faith.

Of course I am not insulted in anything you say - your intention is good, and if you and I have differing views, there is nothing wrong with that.

There is one issue I would like to raise - briefly. Regarding the teachings of Buddha, and most especially Mahayana teaching. Most scholars agree that the Mahayana sutras were authored after the life of the Buddha. But once again, the underlying issue within Mahayana Buddhism is far more subtle. For instance, if we accept (and I think most traditions do) that not all teachings are done through discourse - but also by setting an example, then we can see that - at least implicitly - Lord Buddha taught us that there is a path to Samyaksambuddhahood - and in this sense, he legitimised the path of the Bodhisattva. Once we accept that the path of the Bodhisattva is legitimate, and we also accept that some teachings are implicit (by examining actions and their consequences rather than words) then it becomes apparent that we can use the actions of Buddha in the Pali canon as the basis for the development of a Bodhisattva path - and in that sense I would disagree when you say "There are no teachings on bodhisattva-practice in the Pali Canon" - but rather I would say "There are no explicit teachings on bodhisattva-practice in the Pali Canon" - unless we wish to remove all texts that are concerned with the life, actions and interactions of Lord Buddha himself, regardless of the Jataka!

There are other, far more complex issues regarding the authorship of sutra which (once again) depend upon the view that Buddha does not cease at death - as well as very Mahayana ideas such as the existence of a Samboghakaya. However, I do not feel that there is any necessary criticism merely because different traditions have different views! Metta (20040302 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Regarding your second mail - yes! I was going to question you about that - as I seemed to remember that the issue was not as clearly cut also! I vaguely recall an argument by Nagarjuna where he cites a Sravaka sutra reference to a deceased Arhat makes an appearance to someone, which would indicate that Parinirvana does not indicate the sort of elimination of existence that nihilists usually associate with death. After all, Nirvana is the extinguishment of suffering and the causes of suffering (following the 4 noble truths) - not necessarily the extinguishment of anything else.

I am guessing that the distinctions in the Mahayana and Theravada traditions regarding the nature of enlightenment after death are not as great as they initially appear, though of course I agree with you that there are many differences of view and teaching within each tradition!

Regarding the terms such as 'mind' as in continuum of mind - which I mentioned in an earlier post - of course such minds are not samsaric minds, and do not belong to the samsaric skandhas. It is also reasonably easy to suggest that if attachment and the 12 nidana are enough to keep us locked in samsara, then similarly, metta etc. are enough to keep our stream of 'enlightened' consciousness in nirvana. I am not asking you to believe this, but just to see how these ideas could arise on the basis of the quality of compassion of a Samyaksambuddha! (20040302 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Types of Buddha - Stop!

I am against the rewriting of a huge number of articles that talk quite legitimately of the three types of Buddha / three types of Bodhi - merely on the basis that scholars cannot find a reference to Sravakabuddha (those Sravakas who have achieved Nirvana) that predates the 12thC in Theravada literature.

The fact that the term IS used in 12thC Theravada literature, - albeit 'marginal' literature - indicates that actually, all traditions do understand three types of Buddha.

What I stated above is that if you wish to change these articles, then change them to three types of Bodhi - do NOT change them to 'two types of buddha' - which is misleading, ill-informed, and only accurate in the sense that the term 'Sravakabuddha' is not found before 12thC in Theravada.

I am mentioning this before any more editorial is done regarding this issue.

I reject the term Sravaka as a definition of "Sravaka who has attained Bodhi".
I reject the term Arahant as a definition of "Sravaka who has attained Bodhi".
I accept the term Sravakabuddha as a definition of "Sravaka who has attained Bodhi".

The first is used to refer to all Sravakas, the second to all who have attained Bodhi. The last is found in both Mahayana and Theravada literature. What is your problem?

(20040302)

[edit] Theravada

Hi Sacca, thanks for your message. Glad you like then overall shape of my changes to the Theravada article. I'm short of time today, but I'll explain and justify my "developed in isolation" tomorrow.--Stephen Hodge 22:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitaka

heh, sorry, I didn't get what you meant by "Bipitaka" at first, so I thought it was a typo. I figured it out now.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category?

I'm not sure what to say about the category: "Buddhism in Ancient Mediterranian". For one thing, "Mediterranian" is misspelled, and it should be "in the Ancient..." Moreover, "the Mediterranean" without a qualifier refers to the Mediterranean Sea. You know, once a category is created, it is difficult to move. Also, how many articles will ever be included in that category? Greco-Buddhism is primarily a phenomenon that occurred in the eastern part of the Hellenistic world, away from the Mediterranean Sea.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with these comments. Please correct the spelling, grammar, and content errors in this category name. There is even a second spelling error: "ancient" should not be capitalised here. --Espoo 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Names and Monastic Titles

Hi Sacca. I completely understand about the use of titles. In fact, I was very disappointed when the article I created on Ayya Tataaloka Bhikkhuni was renamed, Tataaloka... so disappointed that I did some research and discovered that it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy to not use "honorifics" in article names. However, we can still give the full name (as in Ajahn Chah's case) in the article content. In the case of Ayya Tataaloka's bio article, I've put her full title, "Ayya Tataaloka Bhikkhuni," (actually, she can now be called "Ajahn Tataaloka" since this is her 10th Vassa) bolded, in the article's opening line. I then created articles for some of the missing monastic titles (like Ayya) and added others to categories for greater access. I also created categories to make it easier to find and link to articles about monastics, including two called Category:Ajahns and Category:Ayyas. Please check them out and feel free to add articles to them. Much Metta Deebki 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too... relieved. That's a very important piece of info about Ajahn applying to school teachers, too. Thanks! I'll check several articles/cats to be sure they reflect that. Do you know if the term "Ayya" has other meanings or what it translates to, other than "Venerable?" Thanks! Deebki 06:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiaw vs. Somdet Kiaw

I noticed that you changed the name of the article on Kiaw to Somdet Kiaw. I had thought that honorifics didn't belong in article titles; thus Bhumibol Adulyadej instead of Prabat Somdet Phrachao Yuhua Bhumibol Adulyadej. Is there a specific rationale or policy that warrants changing the name of the article to include the honorific Somdet? Patiwat 10:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lama/Geshe

Indeed. I think somebody else put the cat there. I thought the anon removal was vandalism. I changed to "Tibetan Buddhist teachers" &mdashHanuman Das 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abhidhamma

I think your wording is too interpretive. It makes abhidhamma sound derivative. Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 48, says that much of the basic ideas of the abhidhamma must be regarded as forming part of the common heritage of Buddhism and parts must go back to the Buddha's lifetime. Peter jackson 10:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about bits of text here. It's more a matter of the methodology. Peter jackson 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the points I'm trying to make are these. (1) The Abhidhammapitaka doesn't claim to be a systematization of the suttas. (2) The Theravada tradition doesn't say it is, either. The separate article on abhidhamma gives the position. (3) Some scholars have said this. Lance Cousins, who, as Professor Gombrich says, is the leading western abhidhamma scholar, does not agree with this position. He says that abhidhamma has a different approach, and is thus not derivative as that position implies, but parallel. (4) I agree with what you seem to be saying about the article on the Pali Canon. I think it should be mainly concerned with describing the contents of the Canon, so I've deleted the matter about the relation between the two pitakas, which can be dealt with in the abhidhamma article. (5) While I'm here I might as well throw in a comment about your discussion with someone else above. I think the reason the Pali Canon does not contain any explicit teaching for bodhisattvas is that in the Theravada understanding a Buddha is one who discovers the truth for himself and then teaches it to others. That is, he has not been taught the path. In the Buddhavamsa Dipankara doesn't teach Sumedha; Sumedha works out the perfections for himself. Note also that in the tradition the perfections are not confined to bodhisattvas but apply to all followers. Peter jackson 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we can put more historical material in, but that has to be done in a properly unbiased way. We mustn't make artificial, hard-and-fast distinctions between vinaya and sutta on the one hand and abhidhamma on the other. We're dealing here with an oral tradition that hasn't been studied adequately, and there are quite widely diverging views. Professor Gombrich believes that most of the material in the Suttavibhanga, Khandhaka and 4 nikayas is authentic, but says himself that most scholars disagree [1]; maybe he's exaggerating his position as a voice crying in the wilderness, but there's obviously a lot of scholars who believe the original teaching unknowable. As I already mentioned, Rupert Gethin believes abhidhamma started in the Buddha's lifetime; Lance Cousins, at least in what I've seen of his writings, is a bit more cautious, saying only that it may well have started with the Buddha.

On the question of the nature of abhidhamma, we can put in something about the different interpretations: the traditional Theravada one, the traditional western one (systematization) and the alternative one (parallel, alternative approach). Lance seems to think the Thais share this interpretation with him.

I'll try to work out some suitable wording for these topics. On the question of authorities, I've been tending to quote what's convenient. It looks to me as if many contributors aren't even familiar with the standard textbooks, let alone cutting-edge research. They have to learn to walk before they can run. It would be nice if they could bring the articles up to date relative to the textbooks and leave less work for those with specialist knowledge.

I'm on a better computer at the moment, so I hope I can sort out the special characters. Peter jackson 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pali Canon

Hello, it's me again. You've missed the point of what I was trying to do. Many computers(including this one) will not display the special characters. Therefore simply replacing the unpointed by the pointed version will deprive some people of information while giving other people additional information. The proper thing to do is give both versions, which is what I was trying to do until I noticed that the code listings in the article on Pali are wrong: 7751 is given for two different characters (61626 & 61686 in Unicode). Perhaps you can tell me the answer so I can finish the job. Peter jackson 10:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Householder (Buddhism) article

Hi Sacca -

I want to explain some significant editing I did to your inserted new first line to the Householder (Buddhism) article that I've been trying to slowly develop.

First, I want to apologize because my first cut was to delete your entire new sentence. (I was running late for work and, in retrospect, made an overly "bold" edit.) Recognizing that I was being overly hasty (and, frankly, unkind) in my cut (just before I set foot out the door and officially was late for work), I reinstituted your changes but then made one serious cut followed by shifting around my own existing text.

I think the good part of your inserted first sentence was that it gives a quick generic statement about a common sense understanding of "householder" in Buddhism, whether somewhat in canonical or non-canonical sources or just floating around in general contemporary parlance. Your inserted sentence, whether intended or not, made me realize that the article can have meaning to those who are not interested in canonical usage of the term but would like an understanding of its general use in everyday Buddhism-like discussion. (For this matter, after appreciating part of what your newly inserted first sentence had done, I shifted my own prior introductory text that was Pali-canon-specific to the Theravada portion of this article.)

Personally, if I may state, I think the unhelpful part of your inserted sentence was when it simply contrasted "householder" explicitly with samana. Prior to your adding your first sentence, the existing first sentence contrasted householder with monastics, ascetics (samana), brahmins and lay followers (and I'm hoping to insert others sometime, such as Jains, etc.) Why eliminate the others from the mix? Part of what the article is trying to do is get away form a polarizing notion of householder on one end and ascetic/monastic on the other, that for instance the Buddha addressed a continuum of people based on their existing situation. So, for this matter, I deleted the samana-only-specific portion of the newly inserted first sentence(s).

Another caveat, if I may: the article is trying to clarify the diffence between "householder" and "lay person" (not necessarily "ordained" [as indicated by the shramana article -- and as you corrected me on (thanks!)] or a "devotee" [as upasaka is translated by the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary]). Much of my own writing in this article that I subsequently deleted was about lay persons (such as regarding the famed Kalamas). Some may feel such an article is boring or splitting hairs, etc., but it's an evolving basis for my creating this article. (Perhaps it would be worthwhile creating a template to identify different categories of personages [and related articles] of Buddhist literature?) [For what it's worth, I was originally motivated to create this article when I read a sutta comparing the skandhas to a house and thus a "householder" to anyone clinging to the aggregates, but I had to delete that part of the article as the article evolved.]

I hope my explanation here seems reasonable but, if not, let me know and I'll expand. Again, my apologies for my hasty revert. And I look forward to future collaborations that I hope we will both find rewarding. LarryR 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sacca -
Thank you for so graciously sharing your considerable knowledge.
The way you write forces me to see some of my own biases and prejudices. For instance, I can appreciate with my mind the way you write about there being no polarization between the ideas of layperson/householder and ascetic/monk; but, living in the United States, I know in my heart of this on-going occasional tension, mostly in non-sectarian groups. Perhaps it is because in the U.S. the Buddhist ascetic/monastic path is new and quivering. Perhaps it is because U.S. householders are loath to relinquish mundane pleasures and thus resent and fear those who have. Perhaps ... it can be a hundred things.
Moreover, I am a person who likes to look first at many available facts and then cautiously draw deductions. So, for me, to write about "householder" I first want to identify what Pali words in the suttas are correlated with this English word and then gather together the more prominent attributes associated with these Pali words and then, from all that, see what this Pali concept of "householder" means. I suspect doing such might lead to something a little different than the way the English word "householder" is used, at least in some contemporary popular U.S. Buddhist discourse. And then, if there is some difference, will it matter? I don't know. But at least I'll have constructed the definition from textual facts as opposed to my own assumed presumptions.
Perhaps you live in a largely Buddhist culture. Where do you live? What is your culture? When you write, at times, you seem to speak more from a living Buddhist experience than from textual servitude. In that case, you can well reflect your lived experience.
I suspect, like most words, the Buddhist notion of "householder" has evolved over time, perhaps from Hindu notions to the sutta's gahattha to Mahayana notions through to contemporary constructions. I'd be happy if this article could reflect some of the milestones in such an evolution.
Thank you again for your sensitivity, enthusiasm, openness, patience and advice. I am glad you are part of the WikiBuddhist community. Sadhu. Peace, LarryR 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sacca - Sorry for not mentioning this earlier but thanks for making a template of the "Peoples in the Pali Canon" table. Well done! I hope all's well with you, LarryR 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghatikara

Hi Sacca -

I see you added Ghatikara (mentioned in MN 81) to the Householder (Buddhism) article. I'm wondering if you've read the "Householder (Buddhism)" article and understand what it states. More specifically, I'd like you to at least read the paragraph to which you added the reference to Ghatikara. The paragraph originally states the following:

The following are examples of individuals who are explicitly identified as a "householder" (Pali, gahapati) in multiple suttas:
  • Anathapindika, is referenced for instance in AN 1.14.249 as "the householder Sudatta, the foremost lay devotee."[1]
  • Citta, referenced for instance in AN 1.14.250 as "the [foremost] householder for explaining the Teaching."[2]
  • Nakulapita and Nakulamata, referenced for instance in AN 1.14.257 and AN 1.14.266, respectively, as "the best confident" and the foremost "for undivided pleasantness."[3]

You then added:

If I may underline part of the above text, the criteria for this list are:

  1. The individual is explicitly identified as gahapati.
  2. The individual is mentioned in multiple suttas.

I believe Ghatikara fails on both these critera. For instance, if you read the Pali version of the sutta [2], you'll see that the word gahapati is not mentioned at all. Instead the sutta uses the word agārasmā for what might be translated as "household" (in contrast to anagāriya for "homelessness"), although Nanamoli & Bodhi (2001), p. 672, translate it as "home life." Again, no mention of gahapati that I can see. (If I am wrong please let me know and I offer my apologies.)

Can you see how your addition about Ghatikara does not logically fit in the article, especially at the place you inserted it. I hope you would see this and revert your addition or, at least, understand if I do so.

May you be safe, happy, healthy and at ease. Best wishes, LarryR 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sacca - thank you for your interesting response. In the spirit of Wikipedia, given your intentions, I'll try to expand the article to accommodate your additions in a logical fashion. LarryR 15:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sacca - I've tried to make the article more inclusive, more accommodating of your views and experience. I hope you will now feel more welcome to participate in editing the article, especially in regards to any canonical texts of which you are fond as well as in regards to contemporary Buddhist householder practices in Thailand and elsewhere (see Householder (Buddhism)#Contemporary Buddhist householder practices). The article has now taken a significant turn from what I had been developing, but I think this could be a good thing. As all the Dhamma tells us: Change happens :-) Sorry for my pigheadedness. I wish you well, LarryR 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sacca - Thanks so much for the recent additions. Very helpful! Good job! LarryR 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Noting the one list item that is not wikified -- prostrations -- makes me think that one of these days we should get around to writing an article on that. For instance, I believe Zen practitioners prostrate with their palms up and together (as if to allow the Buddha to step in their hand) while I think Sri Lankans have their palms downward. Also, it seems different folks have different ideas on what ones intentions and/or focus should be when bowing. And, of course, there is the famous story about the American Zen Buddhist who once saw a Zen monk bowing to statutes of the Buddha to which the American (thinking himself clever) said, "I'd rather spit on the Buddha than bow to him," and to which the Zen monk replied, "You spit. I bow." Oh well, we'll add it to the list of articles to be done. Best wishes!

[edit] Thanks!

Hey Sacca -- thanks for the barnstar, especially in light of my occasional fits of narrowminded pigheadedness (not meaning to disparage pigs though). & right back at ya! Metta! - LarryR 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ten Indeterminates - majhima nikaya 63

You're right that this probably needs clarification but I'm too muddle headed to think what might need to be clarified. What do you think needs work ? I still make a stand on the sutta, however, as revealing notable distinctions between Theravada and Mahayana - it's just not in much circulation in Western scholarly circles. Still, this doesn't make it any less valid.

[edit] Uposatha help needed!

Hey Sacca!

Just discovered that the current Uposatha article is a word-for-word copy of the first two-and-a-half paragraphs of http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha.html. Given your expertise I was wondering, if you get a chance, if you'd be interested in hacking away at the article some (either before or after I butcher it sometime in the next few weeks).

Thanks for any help! I hope you're doing well,
LarryR 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, here's the new site for the Uposatha replacement article.

O.kay. The fire seems to be out. Hope you're doing well nonetheless. (This Wikipedia collaborative editing can be rough going at times ;) ) Many blessings on you, LarryR 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic!! Excellent additions Sacca! Thanks so much! I very much appreciate it. Once again, your knowledge and resourcefulness are impressive.
I especially liked the Rhys Davids & Oldenberg text and link you added. (Hope you don't mind: since I saw that the Rhys Davids & Oldenberg source could be used as the basis for the new King Bimbisara references you added to the article, I moved the link and reference to Rhys Davids & Oldenberg from the "External links" to the "Bibliography" section and then referenced it in an end note. Also, your account of the King Bimbisara event was so much better than the vague sentence I originally had in the "History" section, I basically placed your new sentence over the old sentence I had in the "History" section and changed other text I had written to be in accord with Rhys Davids & Oldenberg.)
In addition, I really like the changes you made to the first sentence; I had had trouble trying to articulate that the Uposatha day was used by the Buddha and the Sangha in the canon and then is still used today by Theravada practitioners. I think you captured that really well in the changes you made.
Thanks so much again. Welcome back to WP.
LarryR 10:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:LayBuddhistPractices2

Hi Sacca -

Hope you're doing well. Thanks for adding "Giving and Sharing" to the Template:LayBuddhistPractices2 footer. I totally agree that it's a "big one" -- one that certainly I and others (and other WP editors in general, perhaps?) could benefit from practicing more :-) . In terms of the template, I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I made a couple of changes to your addition. Namely:

  1. Since I was hoping that the template would squeeze in as few lines as possible (depending on the pixelation of one's viewing area) and since I've tried to just one word where possible to represent a particular practice, I was wondering if you'd mind if: (a) in the template, I changed "Giving and Sharing" to "Dana," and then, (b) in the Householder (Buddhism) article, add "Giving and Sharing (dana)" to the list of contemporary householder daily practices?
  2. In the template(s), move "Dana" to the last position since most of the other practices (Puja · Prostrations · Meditation · Chanting) are meant to reflect the temporal order in which one practices these during their daily practice. I had put "Three Refuges · Five Precepts" first since I figure all Buddhist householders do this bare minimum whether or not they offer puja, prostrate, meditate or chant. Alternately, perhaps "Dana" should come after "Five Precepts" and before "Puja" since people might find the practice of dana to be more a part of their daily practice than the other practices?
  3. I'd like to propagate Dana to the Template:LayBuddhistPractices sidebar.

If you have any reservations or concerns about my pursuing any of these changes, please just let me know. If you discover this message after I've made the changes and you disagree with them, feel free to revert the changes and I'd be interested in discussing further. And, if you'd like to make any of these changes before I do, feel free, of course. Much metta,
LarryR(Talk) 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sacca!!
Thanks so much for the important points! (You are good at showing me my blindspots :-) ) I see three significant points in what your wrote (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting):
  1. Tripartite Division: It would be beneficial to align the template in regards to "Dana, Sila, Samadhi."
  2. English wording: It would be good to use the English word, "Giving," or something similar instead of the Pali word, "Dana" (and I like the accesstoinsight informaton you provide -- perhaps we should integrate it [for instance, regarding the paramis, treasures, grounds, etc.] in the WP Dana (Buddhism) article if not already there?)
  3. New article: You don't really say but your words give me the idea that it would be beneficial to have an article on "gradual training" (Pali: anupubbi-katha).
If I may, I'd like to share you my thoughts on this:
  1. Tripartite Division: Please forgive my embarassing ignorance, but what is: "Dana, Sila, Samadhi"? For what it is worth, I was thinking of re-organizing the Template:LayBuddhistPractice along the lines of the threefold training: Panna, Sila, Samadhi (or, perhaps: Sila, Citta, Panna) -- but I've been holding off because I only recall (and, admittedly, my memory is bad) the Buddha and his Disciples training monastics for samadhi (for instance, in the classic Anapanasati Sutta), never laypeople. Frankly, I've been considering doing some research as to when Samadhi (or, more generally, meditation) was taught to laypeople. For instance, are laypeople so instructed somewhere in the Pali canon or in Dogen's teachings, etc. Do you know about this? Regardless, if you know for a fact from your own experience that the typical contemporary Thai layperson practices meditation (how often? daily?), that would be invaluable and I would be eager to go ahead and make the change to the template.
  2. English wording: Honestly, I've been sticking with "Dana" over "Giving" because I thought it would go better with "Puja" (Offerings -- yet another article I have yet to put together); however, you've awakened me to the fact that the entire rest of the template is in English! (Hence, my blind spot!) So, I agree: I'll change the template soon so that "Dana" reads as "Giving" and so that "Puja" reads as "Offering." (While I'm at it, I may change "Prostration" to "Bow" to perhaps be more inclusive of Zen practices, to be less alarming/foreign to most non-Buddhist English speakers, and to save room in the template.) (And, of course, if you'd like to make the change first, feel free to do so ;-) -- although really, it should be a self-reversion of my own edits -- thanks for your patience with me regarding this!)
  3. New article: Frankly, I've heard mentioned a number of times about the "gradual training" (and, when hearing such, I usually just nod my head and smile), but I don't recall ever actually studying it. Might you be interested in starting an article on it? (If not, I'll add it to my list.)
Also, just to alert you, I've split the initial Template:LayBuddhistPractices into four different templates:
Because I think new or potential Theravada practioners might find it useful to see what a "daily practice" is and to know about Uposatha, I've kept the "Daily"-"Uposatha"-"Other" division in the LayTheravadaPractices* templates. However, due to the differences among sects (such as how often chanting is done), I did not think I could maintain this division in the pan-Buddhist templates, so for those I regrouped them into "Devotional"-"Precepts/Vows"-"Other". However, as you suggest, meditation seems so critical to ones progress that, if it is a true contemporary lay person practice, I'd be happy to change the template to something like: "Preliminary"-"Meditation"-"Other" [Where "Preliminary" would include both devotional and precept practices] -- or something else. Relatedly, do you know about Pure Land and Nichiren practitioners -- do they meditate (and, again, please pardon my ignorance)?
I know this is a lot to digest. Any guidance or wisdom you could shine on it would be appreciated. I hope your heart is happy and vision clear. Best wishes,
LarryR 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI: I made the self-reverts regarding #2 above (changing "Dana" back to "Giving," etc.) just now. Thanks again for your patience and for reiterating the need for this. I wish you the best, LarryR17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, found ATI's summary of the Gradual Training.[3] In terms of specific sutta citations that provide details, only Udana 5.3[4] is referenced. Still, all interesting. I'll have to give it more thought. Perhaps an article some day? Wishing you happiness & health, LarryR 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gradual training

Hey Sacca (as in: "Etena sacca-vajjena," yes?) -

Thank you so much for your personalized dharma talk! Contemplating what you write brings me some deeper peace.

For what it is worth, I think I found a citation for the account of Yasa and the gradual training in the Vinaya's Mahavagga, First Khandhaka, chapter 7 which can be found (in the on-line reference you pointed me to previously — thanks again!) at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe13/sbe1312.htm#7. (I think I've seen this alluded to as Vin i.15, although I'm not sure how the "15" works out.) (Thanks to you, I'm appreciating more and more how accounts from the Buddha's early life are in the Vinaya and not in the Suttapitaka.) (Now, which of us will create the new "gradual training" article first? ;-) [Frankly, I'm kind of bogged down in my sandbox trying to create an article for "Offerings (Buddhism)/Puja" :-( ])

Interesting point about MN 107[5]. Perhaps sometime I'll get a chance to compare the Romanized Pali from this sutta with the aforementioned vinaya account to see if the same Pali words are used. By any chance, might you know if anyone in contemporary Thervada society refers to the training in MN 107 (morality, sense-control, moderate eating, vigilance, mindfulness, hindrance vanquishing and jhanic concentration) as the "gradual training"?

Regarding "Dana, Sila, Bhavana" (and, yes, this gets many more hits on Google!), I've found this talk attributed to Venerable Ācariya Mahā Boowa: "Arahattaphala: Shedding Tears in Amazement with Dhamma."[[6]] Here it states in part:

'How was it that I came to realize this Dhamma?' ...It was the same path that the Lord Buddha had taught: dana, sila, bhavana. This was the path that led me to that point. There is no other way to reach it. Reviewing my past practice, I conceded that the same path could lead others there as well. Maybe there were only a few, but there definitely were some who could make it. I could not deny that. The awareness that it would benefit at least some people encouraged me to begin teaching those who were worthy to be taught.

Pretty impressive. I'm a wee dismayed that, based on your and Ajahn MahaBoowa's statements, "Dana-Sila-Bhavana" appears to be a popular understanding of the teaching and yet there are only 80 Google hits and personally I've not heard this emphasized (though, admittedly, obviously, my experience has been very uneven). Regardless, if you find yourself to modify any or all of the templates to conform to this, please feel free to go ahead :-) Perhaps a new arrangement (perhaps in a new template, such as, Template:LayTheravadaPractices3 ?) would be something like:

Lay Theravada Practices ( view • talk • edit )
GENEROSITY (Dana) MORALITY (Sila) MENTAL DEVELOPMENT (Bhavana)

Almsgiving · Supporting Monastics · Prostrations · 3 Refuges

5 Precepts · 8 Precepts · Right Speech · Right Action · Right Livelihood

Vipassana · Samatha · Jhana · Metta · Meditation

Sorry for your "T"-less keyboard and slow Internet connections. (Perhaps, for the next Uposatha, I too will renunciate a keyboard letter and some bandwidth :) ) Thanks again for sharing your excellent knowledge with me and WP. LarryR 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sacca!
The revised template is looking nice. If I get a chance, I might play around with adding some of the other "samma's" you mentioned sometime.
I wish you a safe and deeply meaningful and blessed trip to Nepal and India. You will be missed from WP but your meritous movements bring much sympathetic joy. Thanks again for your irreplaceable contributions. Be well.
LarryR 22:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Sacca!
I hope your sojourns are going well! Looking forward to the photos or other tidbits!
Thanks so much for the link to Nyanatiloka's dictionary! I've seen it before but wasn't prepared to appreciate it's value back then. Now I've bookmarked it, and I think I'll use it some to add an end note to both the Alms#Buddhism entry (dealing with Dana) and the Sravaka article. And, of course, thank you so much for educating me further on the three qualities contributing to merit (dāna, sīla & bhāvanā). I'll have to remain more sensitive to information anchored by this teaching.
FWIW, I'm probably going to start an entry soon on the gradual training. Soon after our brief conversation above, coincidentally, my local Sutta-Reading group started Chapter VII of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words" (2005, Wisdom Pubs) where Bodhi includes translations of MN 27 and MN 39 dealing with the gradual training. Bodhi (p. 226) additionally cites DN 2, MN 38, MN 53, MN 107 and MN 125 as containing related information. So, after working with this Bodhi chapter over the next few weeks, I'll probably feel comfortable starting an article -- unless you beat me to it, of course ;-D.
Thank you so much again for inching further in the Dhammic path. Your generosity is very much appreciated. May each of your steps bring you greater freedom & serenity. LarryR 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Sacca - Hope you are doing well, wherever you are and whenever you read this. Just wanted to let you know that I used some of the ideas that we discussed above in a new template, Template:LayTheravadaRebirth, which is based primarily on the Dighajanu Sutta. (I credited you some in this template's initial Edit Summary & on the Talk page's P.S. :-) ) Hope you don't mind. Wish you the best, LarryR 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category move

Hello. I'm not sure how one moves categories, but one created by you, Category:Buddhism in Ancient Mediterranian, definitely should be moved, perhaps to Category:Buddhism in the ancient Mediterranean, but wherever it's moved, the name of the sea ought to be spelled correctly. Biruitorul 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/c/User_talk%7ESacca_af54.html"