Misquote of the Buddha?

[clw_uk]

Greetings

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense

This is quite a popular "quote" that i have seen attributed to our teacher but i havent come accross the actual passage itself, is it a slight alteration of the kalama sutta teaching?


Metta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Craig,

is it a slight alteration of the kalama sutta teaching?

Yes - a slight alteration that makes a significant difference to the meaning.

Metta,
Retro.

[clw_uk]

Greetings Craig,

is it a slight alteration of the kalama sutta teaching?

Yes - a slight alteration that makes a significant difference to the meaning.

Metta,
Retro.

Quite a bad difference in meaning, puts the message accross that the Buddha taught that people can just do what they wanted

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Craig,

Quite a bad difference in meaning, puts the message accross that the Buddha taught that people can just do what they wanted

Indeed. These generic "Buddha quotes" propagated over the Internet can be quite the problem to the extent that they cause people to get the wrong understanding of the Dhamma.

Back in the day when I moderated at E-Sangha, we actually had to introduce a policy that anything you attributed to the Buddha in your signature had to be referenced, simply because you would get so many people coming in the door, attributing nonsense to the Buddha, and often doing so completely oblivious to the fact they were misrepresenting him. The policy put the emphasis back on the member to just ditch the quote or maybe do a bit of investigation and find out what the Buddha actually taught.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

It happens so much I felt compelled to make a smiley for it:

[Mexicali]

It happens so much I felt compelled to make a smiley for it:

I tip my hat to you, sir. This is awesome.

[Cittasanto]

Misquotes or mistranslations can be used to understand Dhamma.

[genkaku]

Maybe the whole thing is a bit of a sticky wicket:

On the one hand, there are intellectually-sloppy attributions... oh so annoying.

On the other hand there can be an undue attachment to what is not intellectually sloppy ... as if that were somehow the truth.

My own take is that there is only one way to know what the Buddha taught: Realize and actualize it in your own life. Anything else, whether intellectually sloppy or intellectually apt, will always fall short of the mark.

[Peter]

So, genkaku, we should make no effort to preserve the Buddha's teachings?

[Fede]

.... so....

where's this smiley then?

[genkaku]

So, genkaku, we should make no effort to preserve the Buddha's teachings?

I think it's good to preserve the Buddha's teachings ... as long as we honestly dedicate ourselves to what those teachings are and not to what we imagine them to be. For my money, when you realize there is nothing that can be preserved, there will be fewer problems.

Fewer problems is nice, I think.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

140. Those monks who explain what is not Dhamma as not Dhamma, work for the welfare, happiness, and benefit of gods and men. They make much merit and preserve the true Dhamma.

141. Those monks who explain what is Dhamma as Dhamma, work for the welfare, happiness, and benefit of gods and men. They make much merit and preserve the true Dhamma.

142-9. Those monks who explain not Vinaya as not Vinaya, Vinaya as Vinaya, what was not said by the Tathägata as not said by him, what was said by him as said by him, what was not practised by him as not practised by him, what was practised by him as practised by him, what was not laid down by him as not laid down by him, what was laid down by him as laid down by him, work for the welfare, happiness, and benefit of gods and men. They make much merit and preserve the true Dhamma.

(A.i.140-149)

[Individual]

So, genkaku, we should make no effort to preserve the Buddha's teachings?

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

[thornbush]

Perhaps these 2 Suttas have said it well...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two?
He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata.
And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata.
These are two who slander the Tathagata."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two?
He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out.
And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred.
These are two who slander the Tathagata."

[Cittasanto]

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

Hi Individual,
how do you mean?

[Individual]

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

Hi Individual,
how do you mean?

How do I mean what?

[Ngawang Drolma.]

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

Very nicely stated

[Cittasanto]

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

How do I mean what?

The views! not disenchanted but aloof from views?

on reading this morning I think I understand what you meant but always good to double check!

[Individual]

People should engage in Right Effort, but they should not be disenchanted by views, that is, they should be aloof from views and not unreasonably expect to preserve anything impermanent.

How do I mean what?

The views! not disenchanted but aloof from views?

on reading this morning I think I understand what you meant but always good to double check!

By relying on discernment rather than the belief, "This view of mine is the correct one".

Attachment is connected to views of self (seeing the truth as "my" view, and what I am refuting as "your" false view) and it is the end of discernment. That is, the end of discernment is the arising of the view of self. When a person concludes, "I have discerned this," discernment ceases. But pure discernment has no end to it.

By being aloof -- that is, distanced from -- views, a person doesn't feel attached to them personally or feel aversion to alternative ideas. Instead, a person sees views as being outside of themselves. This can be easily confused with relativism, nihilism, and certain forms of passive or lazy agnosticism.

[clw_uk]

By relying on discernment rather than the belief, "This view of mine is the correct one".

Attachment is connected to views of self (seeing the truth as "my" view, and what I am refuting as "your" false view) and it is the end of discernment. That is, the end of discernment is the arising of the view of self. When a person concludes, "I have discerned this," discernment ceases. But pure discernment has no end to it.

By being aloof -- that is, distanced from -- views, a person doesn't feel attached to them personally or feel aversion to alternative ideas. Instead, a person sees views as being outside of themselves. This can be easily confused with relativism, nihilism, and certain forms of passive or lazy agnosticism.

Good post

This i feel stands in line with the teaching that the Dhamma is a raft (in this case the right view aspect). Things not to be clung to but used to get somewhere

Metta