Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

(This is a follow up post to an earlier post of mine.)

I would like to bring forward the following hypnosis: The Buddha did not consider his Dhamma ultimate truth/reality. The implication of this would be that he would also approve of another Dhamma that also aims at cessation of suffering, but is rooted in Western Philosophy, Christianity or any other belief system. Can someone provide arguments for or against this hypnosis?

One postion in favour of this view might me that of Gethin (1998, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press; received though wikipedia):

The word satya (Pali sacca) can certainly mean truth, but it might equally be rendered as ‘real’ or ‘actual thing’. That is, we are not dealing here with propositional truths with which we must either agree or disagree, but with four ‘true things’ or ‘realities’ whose nature, we are told, the Buddha finally understood on the night of his awakening. [...] This is not to say that the Buddha’s discourses do not contain theoretical statements of the nature of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, but these descriptions function not so much as dogmas of the Buddhist faith as a convenient conceptual framework for making sense of Buddhist thought.

Maarten2 wrote:(This is a follow up post to an earlier post of mine.)

I would like to bring forward the following hypnosis: The Buddha did not consider his Dhamma ultimate truth/reality.

how do you come to that conclusion?

The implication of this would be that he would also approve of another Dhamma that also aims at cessation of suffering, but is rooted in Western Philosophy, Christianity or any other belief system. Can someone provide arguments for or against this hypnosis?

One postion in favour of this view might me that of Gethin (1998, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press; received though wikipedia):

The word satya (Pali sacca) can certainly mean truth, but it might equally be rendered as ‘real’ or ‘actual thing’. That is, we are not dealing here with propositional truths with which we must either agree or disagree, but with four ‘true things’ or ‘realities’ whose nature, we are told, the Buddha finally understood on the night of his awakening. [...] This is not to say that the Buddha’s discourses do not contain theoretical statements of the nature of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, but these descriptions function not so much as dogmas of the Buddhist faith as a convenient conceptual framework for making sense of Buddhist thought.

wouldn't the Buddhas own words be better to use rather than an analysis of a term?
The Buddha disagreed with something based on its truth and how in line with the Dhamma it was, some texts shows teachings being discussed and the buddha disagrees with only half of one doctrine and half of another and merges the correct aspects together to form a cohesive whole, in the process refuting both teachers; another text shows him changing only one word of anthers doctrine.
but if something is useful it is useful, but the theory behind it, for argument sake in Christianity, is going to be flawed due to certain beliefs which go along with it, such as a creator god as being the source of true happiness....

Maarten2 wrote: I would like to bring forward the following hypnosis: The Buddha did not consider his Dhamma ultimate truth/reality.

Source?

The implication of this would be that he would also approve of another Dhamma that also aims at cessation of suffering, but is rooted in Western Philosophy, Christianity or any other belief system. Can someone provide arguments for or against this hypnosis?

(I believe there may be a topic on this already?)

The Buddha mentioned something like that, but only if there were the Four Noble Truths and the 8-fold path present and to have such there would also have to be the doctrine/truth of anatta (no-self). How many other philosophies/religions have anatta as part of their doctrines? Following any religion or no religion can lead one to heavenly realms, but to reach nibbana, the most profound teachings in the Four Noble Truths, etc. need to be understood and experienced.

Hi Maarten,

Maarten2 wrote: I would like to bring forward the following hypnosis: The Buddha did not consider his Dhamma ultimate truth/reality. The implication of this would be that he would also approve of another Dhamma that also aims at cessation of suffering, but is rooted in Western Philosophy, Christianity or any other belief system. Can someone provide arguments for or against this hypnosis?

The Buddha rejected a lot of other belief systems. See, for example,
DN 1 Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the Theravada rejected a lot of rival interpretations of the Dhamma.


Mike

But were those views rejected because they are objectively untrue or because they lead to suffering?

Most untrue believes lead to suffering, but the aforementioned hypnosis holds that there might be some believes that are not objectively true but that do not lead to suffering either. The condition is of course that they are not clung to, but that applies to all things.

FYI: The reason I originally posted this in Classical Theravada is that my faith in the pre-historical Sangha, whom we have to thank that the teaching of the Buddha has been preserved is strong enough to not represent it in such a major way, that I consider the other options much more likely: this is something that got lost in translation (see quote in OP) or this hypothesis is false.

Maarten2 wrote:Most untrue believes lead to suffering, but the aforementioned hypnosis holds that there might be some believes that are not objectively true but that do not lead to suffering either. The condition is of course that they are not clung to, but that applies to all things.

Hi Marten2
do remember that truth is important within the teachings, in is part of the basic morality, something an enlightened being (a being who does not cling to anything) can not do and in some instances (such as Angulimalas utterance to a woman in labour) can have a magical property to it.
so just because something isn't true means it wouldn't lead in the right direction and Dukkha would still be present, simply because of the false nature of the statement.

also falsehoods are part of wrong speech, and livelihood (acting is shown to be a wrong profession due to the deceiving aspect of it, even if it is a recognized aspect of the show.)