Page 3 of 12

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:20 am
by Dhammanando
suttametta wrote:I write the following at the risk of

At times he contradicts himself; there is the passage about the monk who attained Arahatship while slitting his own throat, and then he makes a vinaya rule about not throwing yourself off a cliff.
The Vinaya prohibition you mention was laid down in the aftermath of a suicidal bhikkhu jumping off a cliff and surviving the fall but snuffing the unfortunate fellow he landed on. However, the rule itself speaks only of "throwing oneself off" and says nothing of cliffs. The prevailing interpretation in Thailand takes the rule as prohibiting bhikkhus from jumping from any high place for any reason whatever. According to this view the rule has no essential connection with suicide. For example, many years ago in a Thai monastery library I happened to jump down from a stool after retrieving a book from a high shelf. The librarian monk, a Vinaya scholar, came over and gave me a dressing down for (in his view) breaking this rule and told me that in future I should climb down, rather than jump, whenever there was a need to get from a high place to a low one.[*]

On the other hand, among the Sinhalese it seems that "throwing oneself off" is widely understood to be an idiomatic expression that covers all conceivable methods of killing oneself. This is the interpretation given by Ven. Thanissaro in his Monastic Code and was also my own understanding when I (with no suicidal intent) jumped off the library stool. In the years since then I've heard some clever arguments for both readings, but without finding either entirely compelling. My current policy is to play it safe by neither killing myself nor jumping off stools.

But to come to the point, no matter which reading of the rule we go with, it doesn't contradict the fact that certain bhikkhu disciples attained arahatta in the act of killing themselves. If the rule does indeed prohibit suicide, then it simply means that they attained arahatta after committing a dukkata offence (which is very minor and not the sort of offence that impedes dhammaabhisamaya). If the rule doesn't prohibit suicide, then they wouldn't even have committed a dukkata, for none are reported to have opted for leaping from high places as their chosen method.

Notes:
[*] And applying the Great References, presumably the rule would also include leaping from low places to high ones, thus barring bhikkhus from emulating the rather salubrious-looking practice of the Sisters of St. Beryl:

http://youtu.be/YK9kg-Ngz0Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://youtu.be/GV_A7YeOhfs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:27 am
by danieLion
This post http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p186393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and the Topic it's from might be of relevance.
metta

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:30 am
by suttametta
Bhante, With respect, I find the reasoning presented to be humorous. I can't take it seriously. It just seems to me that the Buddha's rulings were ad hoc.

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:42 am
by robertk
Yes they were ad hoc. That is the way the Vinaya was set , the Buddha waited until the right occasion to set or alter the rules.

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:49 am
by daverupa
While I don't think this was mentioned in the OP, nevertheless is it not the case that the variegated Sutta transmissions we have differ less than the variegated Vinaya transmissions? I'm half-remembering a footnote in a Gombrich book to the effect that, while he could accept the early provenance of much of the Big Four Nikayas, the Vinaya was an altogether different matter (most of the patimokkha being an exception), but he didn't develop the comment.

I've read some Mula-Sarvastivada Vinaya translations by Schopen which depict the Buddha giving advice on what amounts to money loans at monasteries, which seems strikingly out of place. The Councils were also mostly Vinaya disputes, yes? It all begins to support the idea that scholastic differences are strongly represented in the Vinayas, but not so much in the Suttas...

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:10 pm
by mikenz66
Interesting point Dave.

I thought Schopen was dealing with a much later vinaya.
Ven Sujato has compiled various criticisms of Schopen's arguments and related issues:
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/ ... y-schopen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/ ... some-news/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:04 am
by manas
robertk wrote:Yes they were ad hoc. That is the way the Vinaya was set , the Buddha waited until the right occasion to set or alter the rules.
Hi robert, all,

I recall a question asked of the Buddha, something like "in the beginning of the Blessed One's dispensation, there were few rules, but many arahants; now, there are many rules, but fewer arahants. Why is this the case?" or words to that effect. If anyone could please remind me and all present where that was from, I would much appreciate it, because I think it might clarify things here. I mean, of course the rules seem to get made up as time passes. The Buddha only had to make a rule when there was a particular problem; when there was no problem, there was no need for a rule regarding it, afaics.

:anjali:

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:09 am
by Alex123
manas wrote:
robertk wrote:Yes they were ad hoc. That is the way the Vinaya was set , the Buddha waited until the right occasion to set or alter the rules.
Hi robert, all,

I recall a question asked of the Buddha, something like "in the beginning of the Blessed One's dispensation, there were few rules, but many arahants; now, there are many rules, but fewer arahants. Why is this the case?" or words to that effect. If anyone could please remind me and all present where that was from, I would much appreciate it, because I think it might clarify things here. I mean, of course the rules seem to get made up as time passes. The Buddha only had to make a rule when there was a particular problem; when there was no problem, there was no need for a rule regarding it, afaics.

:anjali:

SN16.13
“Venerable sir, what is the reason, what is the cause, why formerly there were fewer training rules but more bhikkhus were established in final knowledge, while now there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge?”

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are declining and the true Dhamma is disappearing there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge. Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world.
SN16.13 BB Trans

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:15 am
by tiltbillings
Alex123 wrote:SN16.13
“Venerable sir, what is the reason, what is the cause, why formerly there were fewer training rules but more bhikkhus were established in final knowledge, while now there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge?”

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are declining and the true Dhamma is disappearing there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge. Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world.
SN16.13 BB Trans
A rather selective quotation. Also, quote the full final paragraph SN II 225.

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:23 am
by Alex123
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Såvatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anåthapindika’s Park. Then the Venerable Mahåkassapa approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

Venerable sir, what is the reason, what is the cause, why formerly there were fewer training rules but more bhikkhus were established in final knowledge, while now there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge?”

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are declining and the true Dhamma is disappearing there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge. Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world. But when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears.

“Just as, Kassapa, gold does not disappear so long as counterfeit gold has not arisen in the world, but when counterfeit gold arises then true gold disappears, so the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears.

“It is not the earth element, Kassapa, that causes the true Dhamma to disappear, nor the water element, nor the heat element, nor the air element. It is the senseless people who arise right here who cause the true Dhamma to disappear.

“The true Dhamma does not disappear all at once in the way a sink ships. There are, Kassapa, five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma. What are the five? Here the bhikkhus, the bhikkhun¥s, the male lay followers, and the female lay followers dwell without reverence and deference towards the Teacher; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the Dhamma; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the Sangha; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the training; they dwell without reverence and deference towards concentration. These, Kassapa, are the five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

“There are five (other) things, Kassapa, that lead to the longevity of the true Dhamma, to its non-decay and non-disappearance. What are the five? Here the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunis, the male lay followers, and the female lay followers dwell with reverence and deference towards the Teacher; they dwell with reverence and deference towards the Dhamma; they dwell with reverence and deference towards the Sangha; they dwell with reverence and deference towards the training; they dwell with reverence and deference towards concentration. These, Kassapa, are the five things that lead to the longevity of the true Dhamma, to its non-decay and non-disappearance.” SN 16.13 The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma BB Trans

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:57 am
by Hanzze
But it also mentioned in a Sutta that Vinaya will decay after the Dhamma has disappeared and that would be a very indices of a maybe present situations and tendencies. A conclusion "We are much into Dhamma and therefore we reduce the Vinaya" or "because we are much into Dhamma we can reduce or deny it" could be maybe misinterpretation from this sutta.

I guess the Vinaya is a very well measuring unit to identify "a counterfeit of the true Dhamma" and we can see that among many sects (where preaching and actions are much controversies).

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:19 am
by mikenz66
Members,

Could we please get back to the topic of this thread, that was started to examine the issues involved in determining which parts of the Canon (if any) are likely to be the word of the Buddha.

:anjali:
Mike

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:21 am
by mikenz66
mikenz66 wrote:Members,

Could we please stick to the topic of this thread, that was started to examine the issues involved in determining which parts of the Canon (if any) are likely to be the word of the Buddha.

:anjali:
Mike

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:19 am
by danieLion
Ajahn Sujato wrote: The GIST [General Integrated Sutta Theory] asks three questions. Firstly, what are the earliest texts? This question is applied to three historical strata: the first discourses, the first collection of discourses, and the first Abhidhamma. The three strata are each established independently; that is, we do not rely on our identification of the earliest discourses in order to establish the earliest collection, and we do not rely on either of these to establish the earliest Abhidhamma. Rather, to establish each layer we use two basic criteria: the concordance of the texts and the testimony of the tradition. An important confirmation for the validity of the criteria is the elegance of the results. This becomes apparent when we answer the second question: how are the three strata related to each other? And the third question is: how are the three strata related to the rest of the Nikāyas/Āgamas? The results of this inquiry, I might mention in advance, are entirely mundane; so mundane, in fact, that they could easily be dismissed as merely stating the obvious. But what is more important here is not so much the conclusions as the method; we are trying to put on a sound basis, what up till now, has largely been a matter of subjective opinion (A History of Mindfulness: How Insight Worsted Tranquility in the Satipatthana Sutta, pp. 13, 14).
pdf links:
http://www.dhammaweb.net/dhammabook/view.php?id=95" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://sites.google.com/site/santipada/ ... to%27swork" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
metta

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:55 am
by Kim OHara
danieLion wrote: pdf links:
http://www.dhammaweb.net/dhammabook/view.php?id=95" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://sites.google.com/site/santipada/ ... to%27swork" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
metta
Quite a good answer to the OP, from the look of it. I haven't taken the time to read it all but the approach seems very sensible.

:namaste:
Kim