Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa

[danieLion]

Howdy Dhammawheelers,

In this Dhamma talk http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/2599.html by John Peacock, starting right around 128:50, he says:

Again we can go off into what I call the heavy-handed religious stuff.... From my reading of the texts that's not what the Buddha is doing at all. That goes back to Hindu asceticism...coming back in--Brahminization. The history of Buddhism...has been one of creeping Brahminization and Sanskritization.... It really has...! Everything that the Buddha tried to cut out, to stop, starts to creep back, slowly, throughout the history of Buddhism.... It's no accident...that one of the four great clingings is the clinging sīlabbata-parāmāsa, the clinging to rites and rituals.

The clinging to rites and rituals: What has Buddhism become full of?

Rites and rituals.

I want to agree with this, but compared to many here at Dhammawheel I don't know enough yet to answer the following:

Is Peacock accurately representing history?

Is he interpreting sīlabbata-parāmāsa right?

I hope for this to be a serious and focused topic. I scale sources from the most authoritative to the least authoritative like so: Sutta, scholarship, Vinaya, comments from bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, Abhidhamma, commentary, modern teachings.

Other, on-topic-question posing is welcome.

(I don't feel I'm challenging orthodoxy so much as questioning the place of/trying to understand the role of orthodoxy in Buddhism; and I'm not seeking "personal" advice [but will use the discussion to reflect on my own rites and rituals clinging]).
good-will
Daniel

[ancientbuddhism]

Naga, Yaksini, Buddha: local deities and local Buddhism at Ajanta, by Richard S. Cohen

This article may be of interest where discussed is the “domestication” of the Saṅgha and Buddhism through the ritual exchange of gifts.

[ancientbuddhism]

On Generalized Exchange and the Domestication of the Sangha – Ivan Strenski, 1983

[daverupa]

Naga, Yaksini, Buddha: local deities and local Buddhism at Ajanta, by Richard S. Cohen

This article may be of interest where discussed is the “domestication” of the Saṅgha and Buddhism through the ritual exchange of gifts.

Related:

Virtuosity, Charisma and Social Order: A Comparative Sociological Study of Monasticism in Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism

This book is a comparative macrosociological study of the interaction between religious virtuosi and society in two civilizations: traditional Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism. Merging Weberian sociology with the Maussian tradition of gift-analysis, and criticizing the neglect of meaning in current comparative historical sociology, the author also argues the need for a multidimensional approach capable of addressing the part played by religious orientations in shaping the institutional strength and ideological power of religious elites in the historical framework of the Great Traditions.

---

Is he interpreting sīlabbata-parāmāsa right?

This thread touches on that topic. My understanding is that this "misapprehension of morality" has to do with the Vedic/Upanisadic idea that ritual action is the only properly efficacious action with respect to effecting liberation. This, of course, is overturned by the idea that kamma = cetana. It seems to me that this particular fetter is specifically related to kamma and morality, and not to (the general growth of) scholasticism within Buddhism.

Is Peacock accurately representing history?

It seems broadly correct; nothing leaps out at me as particularly wrongheaded, but it's quite general which makes a closer look rather difficult.

[danieLion]

My understanding is that this "misapprehension of morality" has to do with the Vedic/Upanisadic idea that ritual action is the only properly efficacious action with respect to effecting liberation. This, of course, is overturned by the idea that kamma = cetana. It seems to me that this particular fetter is specifically related to kamma and morality, and not to (the general growth of) scholasticism within Buddhism.

Spot on, Dave. But I can't help wonder if the Buddha was trying to prevent the religionization of his Dhamma with teachings like sīlabbata-parāmāsa?
Daniel

[danieLion]

Is he interpreting sīlabbata-parāmāsa right?

This thread touches on that topic. My understanding is that this "misapprehension of morality" has to do with the Vedic/Upanisadic idea that ritual action is the only properly efficacious action with respect to effecting liberation. This, of course, is overturned by the idea that kamma = cetana. It seems to me that this particular fetter is specifically related to kamma and morality, and not to (the general growth of) scholasticism within Buddhism.

Hi Dave,
And the Buddha's kamma/cetana doctrine was a response to brahmin rituals. Peacock (no, I'm not a Peacock apologist) refers to it as a creeping back in of ritual because of the interaction of early Buddhists with brahmins. In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).

But I'm not saying anything too novel or that controversial, am I?
Daniel

[tiltbillings]

In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).

Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating. Have you read the Visuddhimagga?

[danieLion]

In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).

Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating.

Tilt! Always glad to interact with you.
Sure, I'll get some citations prepared if you'll permit me some time to consult my collection.
D

[tiltbillings]

In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).

Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating.

Tilt! Always glad to interact with you.
Sure, I'll get some citations prepared if you'll permit me some time to consult my collection.
D

Take your time.

[ancientbuddhism]

The two truth theory of sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca may represent some throwback to the Upaniṣadic notion of duality between māya (illusion) and ātman (Brahman Absolute).

[tiltbillings]

The two truth theory of sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca may represent some throwback to the Upaniṣadic notion of duality between māya (illusion) and ātman (Brahman Absolute).

Or it may simply be that there is more than one way to talk about things.

[pulga]

Sílabbataparámása is overcome--its meaning only realized -- with the attainment of sotápanna. "Clinging to rites and rituals" might be a comprehensible rendering from our point of view, but it's also been rendered -- by Ñanamoli -- as "misapprehension of virtue and vows" which seems to make the term more worthy of deeper thought. Whatever the case, its meaning is transcendent and it's dubious to try to achieve an understanding of it through historical speculation.

[tiltbillings]

Sílabbataparámása is overcome--its meaning only realized -- with the attainment of sotápanna. "Clinging to rites and rituals" might be a comprehensible rendering from our point of view, but it's also been rendered -- by Ñanamoli -- as "misapprehension of virtue and vows" which seems to make the term more worthy of deeper thought. Whatever the case, its meaning is transcendent and it's dubious to try to achieve an understanding of it through historical speculation.

I think you are corrct in what you are saying here, but I am wondering if you could expand a bit on: it's dubious to try to achieve an understanding of it through historical speculation.

[pulga]

Historical reasoning is always fallible: it's inherently so. Now how could a belief in what is fallible yield wisdom?

[tiltbillings]

Historical reasoning is always fallible: it's inherently so. Now how could a belief in what is fallible yield wisdom?

Sorry for being so thick here, but just to make sure I am understanding what your point is, could you, would you, be so kind as to give me an example of what you mean.

[pulga]

The three fetters are a tandem –doubt itself being one of them - that are overcome with the arising of the dibbacakkhu. Any understanding of them – and particularly that of sakkayaditthi – based on some free-floating belief of what might have been going on in an Indian Brahmin’s head three thousand years ago is suspect, if not absurd. Belief entails doubt. An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.

[tiltbillings]

The three fetters are a tandem –doubt itself being one of them - that are overcome with the arising of the dibbacakkhu. Any understanding of them – and particularly that of sakkayaditthi – based on some free-floating belief of what was going on in an Indian Brahmin’s head three thousand years ago is suspect, if not absurd. Belief entails doubt. An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.

Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.

[pulga]

Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.

I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.

[tiltbillings]

Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.

I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.

A concrete example, please.

[danieLion]

Historical reasoning is always fallible: it's inherently so. Now how could a belief in what is fallible yield wisdom?

Always?
May you grow fat with unbounded friendliness.
Daniel