"äÍÉÔÒÉÊ éxÁÈÎÅÎËÏ (Dimitry Ivakhnenko)" wrote:

> There are actually two interviews:
>
> http://www.wie.org/j14/mase.asp
> http://www.wie.org/j18/masefieldintro.asp
>
> As for the first interview:
>
> Personally I consider that there are practices by means of which right
> view might be acquired. However they are a far cry from some popular modern
> paractices.

Well, of course, anyone is entitled to hold personal views. My remarks seek only to
give voice to what is contained in the texts, which are probably the nearest we can
come to the actual utterances of the Buddha.

> There are instences when people acquired Dhamma eye without meeting
> Buddha personally. See, for example, Mahavagga 1, 23, 5
> Upatissa-pasine.

There are always exceptions that seem to (dis)prove the rule. Saariputta is indeed
recorded as having penetrated things upon hearing Dhamma from the newly enlightened
Assaji. The commentary (Ps II 346) states that although Saariputta had fulfilled
the perfections for one asa"nkheyya and a hundred thousand kappas besides, he was
still unable to get rid of even the slightest kilesa of his own accord, yet attained
penetration upon hearing one verse of Dhamma from Assaji.

In fact, the texts (and their commentaries and sub-commentaries) distinguish two
means of acquring right view, namely that of (1) the parato ghosa, or sound from
beyond/another person; and (2) that of yonisomanasikaara, or paying methodical
attention (M I 294; A I 87). According to the commentaries, the former applies in
the case of Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas, since there is for them no parato ghosa, the
latter applying in the case of saavakas (literally, hearers).

Assaji was clearly a saavaka, and thus lokuttara.

> There is a textual evidence for different kinds, or different degrees,
> of right view. See MN 117.

Agreed; but note that the original Pali (M III 72) uses the term dvaya.m, twofold,
or forming a pair, depending upon whether sammaadi.t.thi is lokiya (mundane) or
lokuttara (supermundane). But only twofold, and at that mutually opposed to each
other. To see these as degrees (of one and the same thing) seems quite wrong to me,
and is not the way of the texts.

> The teaching is holographic and it would be an oversimplification to divide
> it in just two levels.

I would be very interested to see any sustained textual support for such a view.

Otherwise, thank you for your kind remarks.

Peter Masefield.