Vessantara And Maddi

Post sayings and stories you find interesting or useful.
User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Vessantara And Maddi

Post by yawares »

[quote="perkele
yawares wrote:I hope I answer all your questions,
yawares
Yes, you did. Now I understand your perspective on this. Thank you very much.
yawares wrote:Dear Perkele, to appreciate and love the Buddha without doubt in your heart you have to read all jataka/dhammapada/sutta stories.
I'm not sure about this. It is true that the Jatakas are difficult to understand in isolation but when one looks at them in the greater context of the other stories and of the Buddha's last life as well they are clearer to understand.
Many people, probably much more in the West as in traditional Buddhist countries like Thailand, are very skeptical of the Jatakas. Many don't believe they are all completely made up. I am also skeptical. But I have read a lot of Jatakas, because I wanted to understand what is the meaning of these stories.
But what is this meaning? For me there are two general possibilities which may both be mixed with each other.
1) In so far as they tell the truth then that is their meaning. Then there does not even have to be much dramaturgic effect or anything to be suspicious of. Then this is just the truth of the past as the Buddha remembered, and the lesson to be drawn comes directly from the truth, unpalliated and pure.
2) In so far as they do not tell the truth someone has made them up. If they are all made up that would be a big-time fraud, putting words into the Buddha's mouth telling strange stories. In that case that person could not have had much regard or much understanding for right and wrong, not much intelligence or not much sincerity in his faith in the Buddha's teaching, and that would clearly show in one place or another. However I don't see any of this.
What I find most interesting is that in the Jatakas there is not such a clear-cut, solidified morality as in the Dhamma later taught by the Buddha, but also nothing that clearly flies in the face of it. There are ambiguities and difficulties and the Bodhisatta comes off as a stranger in a strange world, with no real home and no real identity, but always with a goal. By that I mean the stories are not as perfect as the Dhamma in making so convincingly clear what is right and wrong, which would also be in line with the fact that the Bodhisatta is not a Buddha yet, he is not perfect. And one really sees the point of the stories better or maybe even at all when read in the context of the occasion where the Buddha supposedly told the story. It would be hard to make such things up if only having the intention to put the Dhamma into a story. So that's why I find it hard to imagine how anyone could make all these stories up.

But with all that said, for skeptical people like me it might be better to concentrate on the Dhamma that the Buddha taught after his enlightenment, which is clear and unambiguous. Maybe the greatest benefit that I derive from the Jatakas is to see the horror that comes from identifying with any story character in samsara. :P[/quote]
Dear Perkele,
It's Up To You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Alf4PpcoqQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My favorite song,
yawares
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Vessantara And Maddi

Post by cooran »

perkele wrote:This Jataka is weird. How did the Bodhisatta think of the welfare of his children and wife when he gave them away? If there is supposed to be a moral lesson to be drawn from this Jataka I really wonder who is getting it. In that case I'd kindly ask for an explanation. The message I'm getting is "Sacrifice the welfare of others and you will be rewarded." One might imagine cases where giving away children and wife might be for their best. But in this way? That's seems just perverse to me. I'd really appreciate an explanation from anyone who finds this story nice and inspiring.
Hello perkele,

You may feel a little happier to know from this discussion of esteemed Buddhist scholars that only the Jataka Verses are regarded as Buddhavacana .... not the stories attached to the verses.

[dsg] Re: Dating of texts, [...] (Jaataka)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/23011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Vessantara And Maddi

Post by yawares »

[quote="gavesako"]
Dear Bhikkhu Gavesako,
Mickey Mouse appreciates your answer.
yawares
:candle:
perkele
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Vessantara And Maddi

Post by perkele »

@gavesako:
Thank you, Bhante. But I am a bit stubborn in this regard. I cannot accept the Jatakas as myths, because that is not how they are presented, and the supposed speaker is the Buddha. If someone else made them up that would mean to me that they are just elaborate lies. If the Buddha actually told these stories then I cannot accept them as anything else but the truth. By the latter, however, I don't mean a historical (scientific) report by all means, but just a truthful account of the Bodhisatta's previous lives in his real experience. Such outwardly little things as speaking in terms of ancient India (which could probably hardly have existed in the same way eons ago) I have no problem with in this case. The important truth that should be preserved in the story to be a truthful account in my eyes is about the intentions of the characters, mainly the main character, the Bodhisatta. All the other things are quite arbitrary. All things in this conditioned world can change in such strange ways that it is probably quite impossible to tell stories about them if not presenting them in familiar terms. But the only thing that bears any long-lasting meaning is the intention, that is, the kamma, of the characters, and the results they experienced on account of that, and so it is the only thing really worth preserving when telling a story truthfully. Of course, in order to depict the intentions most precisely and clearly, it is usually the best to stick with the dry facts of the outward reality, because intentions cannot be depicted directly but only in the form of the actions of characters in relationship with an outward reality, and so these outward things just in the way they are are usually the most reliable anchors to spin the story around. But in the case that this outward reality is utterly unfamiliar and undescribable I think it to be allowable to use familiar terms if possible in such a way that the intentions of the characters are well-presented in their qualities and in their results. This is of course extremely difficult. And if that is not possible then such a story should not be told. I also believe that the Buddha did not tell any such stories if that kind of truthfulness was not possible. That is for example my explanation why there is no story of his earlier tortures in hell and the evil intentions which brought him there, because these things would be too horrible and twisted to imagine and to convey much meaningful content about. Also he had done away with that evil kamma in the past and not let any significant results of it carry over into the present which might have given occurrence for him to tell a story about it. There is only a short mention that he had been a king before and had had some people punished in an unjust and cruel way, and after being in hell, he was born again in that same kingdom as the prince and heir to the throne, but he played stupid and renounced, and put many things in order and to justice. That is simple truthfulness. No big drama about what went wrong. There was unjust punishment and as a result hell, and then renunciation.
So these are the allowances which I make in telling a story truthfully. And if and in so far as the Jatakas were told by the Buddha, then these are things which I believe he would have adhered to when telling them. A myth, for me, is something else.

I would very much appreciate any thoughts and comments on my way of thinking about these matters.

cooran wrote:You may feel a little happier to know from this discussion of esteemed Buddhist scholars that only the Jataka Verses are regarded as Buddhavacana .... not the stories attached to the verses.

[dsg] Re: Dating of texts, [...] (Jaataka)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/23011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
Thank you, Chris. But that does not change very much. The verses tell quite the same story.
Post Reply