[happyman]

I was wondering what your understanding is of the terms 'mundane' and 'supramundane' Dhamma. Can you give any examples?

[Drysnyaty]

Examples: Rebirth is a mundane teaching for faith and morality. It encourages sila, the essential first stage of the practice. Not-self is a super-mundane teaching for relinquishment. It leads to Nibbana

[Jxmwzgpv]

Examples: Rebirth is a mundane teaching for faith and morality. It encourages sila, the essential first stage of the practice. Not-self is a super-mundane teaching for relinquishment. It leads to Nibbana

Very clear Deshy, direct to the issue, thanks.

[NeroASERCH]

I understand mundane as conventional reality, pertaining to matters of "self" and society. As Deshy said, the primary purpose is to cultivate morality or ethics.

Where as supramundane pertains to "not-self" & emptiness. As Deshy said, the primary purpose of which is to end suffering.



An example of a mundane teaching is the Apannaka Sutta, which criticises a householder that holds to a view of 'non-existence' and praises a householder than holds to a view of 'existence'. As shown in the Apannaka Sutta, its purpose is for householders to adopt & practice the three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct & good mental conduct.

An example of a supramundane teaching is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, which states holding exclusively to a view of either 'non-existence' or 'existence' is wrong view. As shown in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, its purpose is to know, without doubt or hesitation, that whatever arises is merely dukkha and that what passes away is merely dukkha, and such knowledge is one's own, not depending on anyone else.

[boxcigsnick]

These seem like supramundane meanings of the mundane!? The mundane is the
ordinary, or down to earth, right? And "supra" means "beyond" basically, right? So: the teachings on The Mundane & The Supramundane are themselves supramundane? Would that be supra-supramandane? Meta-supramundane?

Does this have anything to do with cultural anthropological distinction between the sacred and the profane?

Wishing you all happiness in your hearts and peace in your lives.

[exchpaypaleg]

"Supramundane" or "transcendent" pertains to emptiness (sunnata). The word is 'lokuttara', which means 'above the world' or 'beyond the world'.

The Buddha used the word 'the world' (loka), synonymously with suffering (dukkha). "Mundane" means "the worldly".

Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ – ‘ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīratthā lokuttarā suññatappaṭisaṃyuttā, tesu bhaññamānesu sussūsissāma, sotaṃ odahissāma , aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhāpessāma, te ca dhamme uggahetabbaṃ pariyāpuṇitabbaṃ maññissāmā’ti. Evañhi vo, bhikkhave, sikkhitabba’’nti.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....007.than.html The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....044.than.html "Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....082.than.html Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....045.than.html "Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....006.than.html

[Biassasecumma]

So when dukkha is absent the supramundane is present?

[juyrett]

When dukkha is absent, with insight (vipassana/nana), the supramundane is present.

But when dukkha is absent because, say, your mind is unconscious or asleep, the supramundane is not necessarily present.

[naturaherbal]

I understand the ideas of "mundane" and "supramundane" dhamma to be later contrivances that attempt to elevate superstition and speculative view to the same level as the Buddhadhamma (or higher). The Buddha spoke of the worldly to describe superstitions and speculative views that preceded him, and of that which is "beyond the world" to describe his own Dhamma, based in discernment and empirical reason, which transcends and allows one to rise above worldly concerns, including superstitions and speculative views.

There is a popular but erroneous view that holds that one must begin with (and end up with, as well) beliefs in various superstitions and speculative views in order to practice according to the Buddha's teachings. But the Buddha set all that aside with statements like:

"Enough, Udayi, of former times and future times. I will teach you the essence of the Dhamma: When there is this, there is that. With the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that cannot be; when this ceases, so does that."

and:


"Good, Bhikkhus! You say this and I also say it. Thus when this is present, that happens. When this arises, that arise. That is, because of ignorance, [volitional] formations arise. Because of [volitional] formations, consciousness arises. Because of consciousness, name and form arise. Because of name and form, the sixfold sense base arises. Because of the sixfold sense base, contact arises. Because of contact, feelings arise. Because of feelings, craving arises. Because of craving, clinging arises. Because of clinging, becoming arises. Because of becoming, birth arises. Because of birth, old age, sickness, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress arise. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha.

"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

[venediene]

Do you have references/links for the suttas mentioned, please Stuka ?

[searkibia]

I take mundane to mean anything and everything that can be taught in language. Supramundane is experiential understanding, that which is seen directly by investigation and observation, not itself based on thought. Supramundane understanding is like knowing what sight is by seeing, or what sound is by hearing; it's not the sights and sounds themselves, separated and classified conceptually, but rather the experience itself. Enough of these experiences intuitively re-direct the mind and transform the mind until wrong views are abandoned.

[primaveraloler]

Do you have references/links for the suttas mentioned, please Stuka ?

MN 79 Culasakuludayi Sutta and MN 38 Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.

[annouhMus]

I take mundane to mean anything and everything that can be taught in language. Supramundane is experiential understanding, that which is seen directly by investigation and observation, not itself based on thought. Supramundane understanding is like knowing what sight is by seeing, or what sound is by hearing; it's not the sights and sounds themselves, separated and classified conceptually, but rather the experience itself. Enough of these experiences intuitively re-direct the mind and transform the mind until wrong views are abandoned.

But everything the Buddha taught -- which of course includes his own lokuttaradhamma, his own Path right up through Nibbana -- he taught using language.

[BgpOoGI2]

Yes stuka, but the supramundane understanding is the result of practice, not of conceptually understanding the teachings. Direct experiential insight is supramundane. All of the teachings are mundane, can not be other than mundane. They can _lead_ to supramundane knowledge. That is the difference between our world of thought and of true wisdom.

[jessyhalm]

Fine for you, but the Buddha did not teach Dhamma like that.

[nmnrIjGB]

Didn't he? I'd appreciate it if you could find where a teaching is itself supramundane rather than a path to supramundane. Otherwise we'll both just have to agree to disagree and be happy with our views.

[ENCOSEARRALIA]

I've actually been trying to find something on this myself on the web, but it seems everywhere supramundane is used is talking about stream-entry and beyond, the fruits of the practice rather than the teachings themselves. If you find anything reputable otherwise, please let us know.

[QqJamxqP]

Maybe a better way of explaining what I mean as the difference between mundane and supramundane...

I tell you that a fire is hot, that it causes pain, and that you don't want to stick your hand in it. From that you've come to the mundane understanding that a fire is hot and causes pain.

Wanting to verify your understanding, you go ahead and stick your hand in the fire (just a little). The fire burns and causes you pain. That burning, that pain which you experience, would be the supramundane knowledge.

Anyone else wanna chime in? =)

[QysnZWB4]

MN 117, Maha Cattarisaka SUtta (Bodhi trans):

7. “And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
*
8. “And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path:1103 this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. The actual word in Pali is lokuttara, which does not mean "supramundane" in the sense that you are using it, which is a later interpretation based upon a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teachings as a description of "the true nature of reality".

The idea that is popular among so-called "traditionalists" that "supramundane" teachings are only for those who are arhants is a misrepresentation of the Buddhas teachings. The Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path -- the Buddha's own unique teachings -- are the lokuttara Path.


Edit: Thanissaro's translation ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....117.than.html )translates "Discernment" rather than "wisdom":

"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

[scemHeish]

Anyone else wanna chime in? =)

Hi Cloud,

When I stick my hand in the fire... just a little... I can experience pain. I am a devotee about having an experience so to learn. I have ever thought that the true way to learn is through direct experience because if it is not direct it will lead to delusion and to fabrication. This is about empirical knowledge and most of the achievements that one can have with the teachings of the Buddha, mainly the Pali Dhamma, are about direct experience. But, aren't we talking about empiricism more than Supra mundane issue?

The problems that have always been faced by empiricism is that the experience can not be given to another person. Is highly personal but that do not mean is not universal. Everybody that decides to put the hand in the fire, will experience pain. But you can not give that pain to that person just telling about pain.

The Buddha said, sensual pleasures are about gratification, danger and escape. We have to experience this when we are into a given pleasure. This is a universal experience but it has to be understood just by empirical experimentation. So I do not see where is the Supra mundane issue in this.