Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33polarbuddha101 wrote:Well, the Buddha's dead, so if you would kindly show me the writing where the Buddha says he doesn't want his teachings written down I would appreciate it.danieLion wrote:No. The Buddha is the basis of his teachings. He's on record (in the Vinaya) saying he didn't want his teachings written down. Add this to the message of the Kalama Sutta and you have a powerful reason not to invest absolute faith in the suttas, but rather to read them critically.alan wrote:And we all agree that the suttas are the basis of all teachings. And I won't hear any disagreements, right?
We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
I will read that sutta verse critically.danieLion wrote:
Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33
Do you have the text for that, or a link?
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
You must be referring to the idea those monks had of having the teachings formally put into Sanskrit, rather than local dialects. The Buddha ruled as follows:danieLion wrote:Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33
You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Perhaps this is just my prejudice, but I'm of the opinion that a basic understanding of the suttas is a necessity for anyone who is serious about the path.
Ignoring them, or, even worse, assuming you know better, is just a sign of ignorance.
Ignoring them, or, even worse, assuming you know better, is just a sign of ignorance.
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Did you have someone specific in mind, and/or something particular he/she/they did, said or believe?alan wrote:Perhaps this is just my prejudice, but I'm of the opinion that a basic understanding of the suttas is a necessity for anyone who is serious about the path.
Ignoring them, or, even worse, assuming you know better, is just a sign of ignorance.
I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
That is a dense thicket to traverse.danieLion wrote: But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
The four main Nikāyas and the sutta sections of the fifth Nikāya display a remarkable degree of internal consistency. I've yet to see an argument regarding inauthenticity that amounts to anything significant. Most such claims are rooted in the biases of the author's own worldview or doctrinal assumptions.danieLion wrote:I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.
The general advice offered in the suttas is to (i) maintain appropriate ethical conduct, (ii) go to a secluded place to reflect of the teachings and calm the mind, (iii) develop discernment into impermanence, etc., in order to further induce dispassion and letting go of attachments.
The teachings and meditation methods are all means to an end -- liberation from passion, aggression, and delusion. The apparent diversity of methods and inclusiveness of practices illustrated in the Pāli Nikāyas is oriented towards this goal, either directly or indirectly. Methods and practices are provisional, and as long as the application of the practice supports the lessening and eventual elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion, it accords with the Buddha's dhamma.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
I can agree with that. I wonder, however, if there is a more important question of what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic. And here I use "mythic" or mythological as referring to a way of relating truths via stories and cosmologies that need not be seen as being literally true to make a valid point.Ñāṇa wrote:The four main Nikāyas and the sutta sections of the fifth Nikāya display a remarkable degree of internal consistency. I've yet to see an argument regarding inauthenticity that amounts to anything significant. Most such claims are rooted in the biases of the author's own worldview.danieLion wrote:I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
I think that is something that we work with over time. There does not have to be a fixed collective starting position.tiltbillings wrote:what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Yes.Mr Man wrote:I think that is something that we work with over time. There does not have to be a fixed collective starting position.tiltbillings wrote:what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Yes, in terms of traditional Buddhist hermeneutics this distinction is between sutta statements that are already fully drawn out, explicit, and definitive (nītattha) and those that are provisional (neyyattha). But alongside this analysis there needs to be consideration of the body of texts that are to serve as authentic scriptural authorities and the criteria that are to be used to establish what qualifies as definitive or provisional.tiltbillings wrote:I can agree with that. I wonder, however, if there is a more important question of what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic. And here I use "mythic" or mythological as referring to a way of relating truths via stories and cosmologies that need not be seen as being literally true to make a valid point.
Personally I consider the four main Nikāyas and the sutta sections of the fifth Nikāya to be authentic scriptural authorities (as well as the surviving non-Pāli collections and fragments of collections that parallel these discourses) and I consider the teachings on anatta to be definitive and all other teachings to be provisional.
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Yes, why chase the limitless with the limited?tiltbillings wrote:That is a dense thicket to traverse.danieLion wrote: But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
OK, but methods and practice are only one part of what is contained within the suttas.Ñāṇa wrote: Methods and practices are provisional, and as long as the application of the practice supports the lessening and eventual elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion, it accords with the Buddha's dhamma.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
Yes. And?...porpoise wrote:OK, but methods and practice are only one part of what is contained within the suttas.
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.
How do we assess the validity of all the other stuff?Ñāṇa wrote:Yes. And?...porpoise wrote:OK, but methods and practice are only one part of what is contained within the suttas.
Buddha save me from new-agers!