manas wrote:retrofuturist wrote:
Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly comfortable to call my path a Retro-fabricated-N8P even though I regularly insist on building my path with Buddha-dhamma-brand materials. I wouldn't call my path itself Buddha-dhamma, unless I was a Buddha, which of course I'm not.
So it would appear that we all have to fabricate the Path for ourselves, out of five heaps, using an ancient instruction manual written in a foreign language...
And in the context of a foreign culture long dead. And in addition to that the "instruction manual" shows signs of handling and editing reflecting at least four broad groups of monastics preserving the texts in question in somewhat differing emphasis. And add to that there are other versions of the "instruction manual" that also show handling and editing.
retrofuturist wrote:Why was it important to you, personally, to say that your path is Buddha-dhamma?
One of the ongoing problems here is the limited understanding of "Buddha-Dhamma." There is Buddha-Dhamma in terms of Buddha-sāsana (Buddha-Message) or Buddha-vācāna (Buddha-Speech/Words), which is the suttas, and there is Buddha-Dhamma, the Buddha-Truth, which ideally is what is contained within the suttas. As I said, it quite possible to speak about impermanence in ways that accord with the Buddha-Dhamma, the Truth the Buddha taught without quoting his words, the Buddha-sāsana/Buddha-vācāna.
It is quite possible to quote the Buddha-sāsana and explain the text without deviating from the Buddha-Dhamma, the Truth the Buddha taught, but, of course, who determines if the explanation does, in fact, deviate from the Truth of the Buddha, which, of course, suggests that one actually knows what that is. I don’t think Buddhaghosa, the Voice of the Buddha, ever characterized the Visuddhimagga as Buddha-Dhamma as understood as Buddha-vācāna (Buddha-Speech/Words), but I am sure he most sincerely felt that he was faithfully explicating the Buddha-vācāna (Buddha-Speech/Words), giving us Buddha-Dhamma, the Truth of the Buddha.
But as we have seen on this forum, even very basic sutta teachings can bring about significant disagreements. I have been amused to have been, at times, lectured on the correct understanding of the Pali of a text by someone who has not a clue about the language and how it works. And, as another example,we have seen noting as a practice severely criticized here as not being in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings because it is not mentioned in the suttas. Not mentioned in the suttas it is not in accord with the Buddha-Dhamma, so to hell with it. All too easy to get lost in an unquestioning adherence to the letter, completely missing the spirit.
The question is, who gets to determine (and how) what is and is not in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings?
So, “Why was it important to you, personally, to say that your path is Buddha-dhamma?” If it is not Buddha-Dhamma, what is it? (Of course, I am not advocating an “everything goes” version of the Dhamma.) What I do and understand is grounded in 40+ years of practice and study of the suttas with help along the way from Vens Buddhaghosa, Nyanaponika, Nananda, Joseph Goldstein, Munindraji and many others. While it is easy to point to sometimes significant variations among these teachers, I cannot get overly exercised over that given that some very fundamental things carry across the supposed differences. After all the study and practice I have come to one useful realization, which I do not have to have every bit of the Dhamma absolutely figured out, as if that were possible. I need enough to do the practice, and the Dhamma of the Buddha is resilient enough to accommodate the much of the differences. What I practice is Buddha-Dhamma as I understand it.