One wisdom or three wisdoms?

[Viach]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

[Aemilius]

I think it is the same wisdom. It is only the degree of your collectedness or your lack of collectedness, i.e. your scatteredness, which determines how deep your wisdom penetrates into your being. It determines how much your insight into the nature of reality changes your being, how deep the resultant transformation of your being is. It has been compared to the stillness of mind and a stormy mind in which the candle of insight will soon be blown out.

[avatamsaka3]

Since the goal is the end of suffering, there can only be one wisdom worth pursuing.

[Budai]

Not every Buddhist's goal is to end their own suffering. Sometimes I even question whether Buddha ended His. I know that is unorthodox of me, but I believe because of how long He and other Bodhisattvas are in the world, even in the lower realms saving those that are there, I wonder if it is okay to just shrug off their pain as no longer suffering and only as some kind of Upaya to bring others to suffer less. For example in the Lotus Sutra, Buddha is said to have been Enlightened before Gaya, asamkhyas of kalpas before, but still in that Upayic state He was brought to tears, to starvation, to desperation before His provisionally moved Enlightenment. Then what about after? And then in the consequential next lives?

Some Buddhists would soon end other's suffering before their own, and spend eons doing so. With respect to this I think it's good to say that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering, but before that, Enlightenment. One can end their suffering simply in the Amida Buddha Land by calling on His Name, without any other qualification, or possibly someone else may have done it for you. So these are the gifts of the Buddhas.

So the Wisdoms that lead to Enlightenment are the ones worth pursuing. And the three Wisdoms, of Hearing, Reflection, and Meditation all point to one of necessary combinations for Enlightenment when in contact with a Buddha. Of course, there are variations of this, but they are important for Awakening.

[avatamsaka3]

I didn't say "their own".

[Budai]

Well with regards to the Four Noble Truths:

1. The truth (or reality) of suffering (Skt. duḥkha-satya; Tib. སྡུག་བསྔལ་གྱི་བདེན་པ་) which is to be understood,
2. The truth (or reality) of the origin of suffering (Skt. duḥkha-samudaya-satya; Tib. ཀུན་འབྱུང་བའི་བདེན་པ་), which is to be abandoned,
3. The truth (or reality) of cessation (Skt. nirodha-satya; Tib. འགོག་པའི་བདེན་པ་), which is to be actualized, and
4. The truth (or reality) of the path (Skt. mārga-satya; Tib. ལམ་གྱི་བདེན་པ་), which is to be relied upon.

You are right. The goal is to end suffering, as the Truths bring us to the Path. And the means and Ultimate Goal is Enlightenment.

With regards to whether it's Three Wisdoms or One Wisdom.. How do you want to explain it to others? Hearing, Meditarion, and Reflection are all conductive of the Wisdom that brings us to Enlightenment. The One Wisdom worth pursuing has always been Maitri. That's always what the Dharma has been about. I see Maitri bringing people to Enlightenment, and that's what I see all of the Enlightened Teachers preaching about all throughout the world. The Dharma is Love, and the more we explain this point the more people will come to the Dharma and understand it. Where does Wisdom come from? Only from Love, nowhere else.

[Malcolm]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

There are three trainings: śila, samadhi, and prājña. In the category of prajñā are the prajña's of hearing, reflection, and cultivation. They are different. The first is hearing a dharma topic; the second is reflecting on its meaning; the third is integrating into the path. Only the third is pure wisdom, the first two are conceptual.

Those āryas who had sudden realization from hearing a word of dharma, like Shariputra, had strong past life traces with the Buddhadharma.

[Viach]

All commenters ignored my question: "Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above?" Nobody has given a specific quote from the sutra and has done a grammatical analysis of this quote.
P.S. Standard explanations are already known to me and are not the subject of my post.

[LastLegend]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

Wisdom that is instant is not wisdom from studying.

Mahayana and Sravakayana practitioners study those three wisdom. Maha prajna is not so concerned with those. Fundamentally Maha Prajna is the default wisdom beyond the grasping of consciousness or aggregates and beyond description because description is still consciousness. It’s like there is no arising consciousness that knows itself. That’s the great cessation and samadhi of emptiness.

[LastLegend]

Thus no arising Dharma is known and no self is known!

[Natan]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

In a sense what ever you discover to be true and valid is a punya. There can be infinite wisdoms. Then Buddha sets out specific wisdoms relative to the path.

[Malcolm]

P.S. Standard explanations are already known to me and are not the subject of my post.

What makes you think anyone here has the requisite language skills in Pali or Sanskrit to answer your question? You should know better.

[Natan]

P.S. Standard explanations are already known to me and are not the subject of my post.

What makes you think anyone here has the requisite language skills in Pali or Sanskrit to answer your question? You should know better.

Punya is a pretty well trodden term buddy.

[Malcolm]

P.S. Standard explanations are already known to me and are not the subject of my post.

What makes you think anyone here has the requisite language skills in Pali or Sanskrit to answer your question? You should know better.

Punya is a pretty well trodden term buddy.

He is asking about prajñā, wisdom. Punya is merit.

[LastLegend]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

In a sense what ever you discover to be true and valid is a punya. There can be infinite wisdoms. Then Buddha sets out specific wisdoms relative to the path.

What you mean?! By wisdom.

[Natan]

What makes you think anyone here has the requisite language skills in Pali or Sanskrit to answer your question? You should know better.

Punya is a pretty well trodden term buddy.

He is asking about prajñā, wisdom. Punya is merit.

That's true lol

[Natan]

In the list, wisdom through hearing-wisdom through reflection-wisdom through meditation, does the word wisdom refer to the same wisdom (namely direct vision of 4TN = 4 Truths of the Noble) or is it three fundamentally different types of wisdom. Is it possible, based on the analysis of the Pali / Sanskrit grammar of the original text (sutra), to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed above? The background of my question is that in the time of the Buddha and not only there were cases of enlightenment at the moment of listening to the dharma. I.e. the hearing was just a trigger.

In a sense what ever you discover to be true and valid is a punya. There can be infinite wisdoms. Then Buddha sets out specific wisdoms relative to the path.

What you mean?! By wisdom.

I already said.

[haha]

Wisdom is just wisdom. It has same function whichever way one uses to categorize it. Two models of categorization are used in above post (three wisdoms and four wisdoms of NT). Another four is perfect discernment/knowledges/ discrimination (pratisamvidh). For Vajrayana, there are four types of perfect knowledge/sambodhi (i.e. one, twenty, etc.) For Dzogchen, it says three (i.e. jnana). It is just the categorization. They do sometimes spinning our head because of not getting required information. However, we might be familiar with it in other term or categorization.

Some people indeed attained arhathood at the end of the Tathagata’s discourse. They did not have to go through your so called process of hearing, reflection and meditation. It is because they had very little dirt in their eye. Single blow of tathagat’s mouth (i.e. single teaching) would break the eggshell of ignorance. It is because their required limbs for enlightenment were already in maturity. For them in the moment of hearing it became meditation; they directly realized the meaning/essence at that moment of hearing. This narrative is person specific.

There is an argument. It is said that title of certain scripture is enough for the sharpest-faculty-person to understand its essence. Medium-faculty-person needs brief explanation. Lower-faculty-person needs through explanation of whole text and go through several months or years of practice. In this case, is the essence the same? You know the answer.

If one has complete required faculty (indriya), one can do clear and perfect visualization in the moment of description or even merely reading a book. No need to train gradually, no need favorable setting. To other, they have to go through step by step (i.e. need more hearing/reading, reflection and meditation for visualization.)

[LastLegend]

Then why we still get lost in delusion if it’s true wisdom?

[Viach]

Does listening generate thinking and thinking generate meditation? Or does listening generate wisdom through listening? Then what is this wisdom through listening?