"The Buddha did not teach it..."

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dave,

Don't you think those beginning metta instructions are the same basket as counting breaths, noting, and so on? Just ways to get focussed? As far as I can tell, all that the nikayas say is to radiate metta to all beings. Imagining a flower, a puppy, yourself, etc, is just a way of starting, of bringing up the feeling. I would agree that it shouldn't stop there, as the suttas make very clear.

Similarly, I don't see that the suttas specify whether (or not) one should enter jhana by following a breath nimitta (as the Commentaries, Ajahn Brahm, and others, recommend). Or whether one should do walking meditation slowly or fast, or what exactly to focus on when walking or following the breath. Ultimately, I don't think it matters, since the particular sensations and experiences are not the point.

I like the way you expressed:
"... the difference between the Dhamma and the various tools people employ to get at it".

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by daverupa »

mikenz66 wrote:Don't you think those beginning metta instructions are the same basket as counting breaths, noting, and so on? Just ways to get focussed... a way of starting...
Daily sila & satisampajanna does that, not counting breaths or using the imagination for metta.

The view that breathing meditation is primarily a seated practice involving trance-like focus, or that brahmavihara meditation involves a targeting system... these are misunderstandings, not different strokes for different folks, it seems to me.
  • "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]
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by cooran »

Hello Dave,

It appears to me that in the Buddha's teachings in the Metta Sutta that there is some instruction for us to ''radiate'' metta to various categories - omitting none. I dont think this is a ''touchy-feely universalist'' thing - but involves resting the mind temporarily on particular individuals or groups of beings.
What do you reckon?

Sn 1.8 PTS: Sn 143-152
Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha's Words on Loving-Kindness
translated from the Pali by The Amaravati Sangha

''This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.''

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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Dan74 wrote:Secondly, supposing that the Buddha really did not teach something (like the Ajahn Sumedho's Sound of Silence meditation for example). Does this mean it is irrelevant and of no use? This to me seems a big leap of logic.
It sounds like the leap of logic is the erroneous assumption that the answer to the rhetorical question is "yes". 8-)

That said, "the Buddha did not teach it..." :lol:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by zavk »

Hi all

This is an ongoing issue that needs collective attention. My two cents:

It seems to me that the assertion 'The Buddha did not teach it...' is usually made on the basis of textual authority. That is, a certain corpus of texts is regarded as the final arbiter on whether a particular way of thinking-practice is 'authentic' or 'original'. Regardless of how early these texts could be dated, this raises some questions:

- Is this how the Sanghas throughout history have approached textual resources? My general understanding is that historically texts were not simply subject to interpretation and analysis in the way that we are accustomed to and with which such assertions 'The Buddha did not teach it...' are made today. Amongst other activities, scriptural texts were recited collectively in various ceremonial contexts. In other contexts, emphasis was given (and perhaps, still is in certain traditional Buddhist cultures) to the memorisation of texts rather than interpretation and analysis. This is not to say that Buddhists practitioners of the past did not study, analyse, or interpret scriptural texts as we do today. What I'm suggesting is merely that the interpretive approach that appears so natural to us was perhaps not given the priority we give it today - if anything, it was always a part of a broader constellation of practices.

Nor am I suggesting that an interpretive approach is unhelpful or 'wrong' or that we should discard it. My understanding is that such an approach - which really came to the fore in the nineteenth century with the discovery of the dhamma by European scholars - was influenced by the prevailing Biblical scholarly paradigm of the time, a scholarly paradigm that regarded the Word or Logos as the final authority. If so, then, isn't it important to be reflexive about how such an approach is transposed onto the Dhamma, since unlike Christian scriptures, Buddhist texts emerged out of very different circumstances and were composed for very different purposes? In which case, we could ask: is an exclusive textualised approach for ascertaining 'what the Buddha taught?' what the Buddha taught?

- Building on the previous points and connecting with some of the observations made by Mike and Ñāṇa, it would seem that the question of whether a particular way of thinking-practice ought to be followed or not has to be considered not just with reference to a particular corpus of texts, but also in an ongoing life-practice that is to be cultivated with the support of a broader community - which might sometimes develop various approaches that are not necessarily found in canonical texts but are nevertheless inspired by lived experience of engaging with the Dhamma. In other words, the question I wish to raise is: in relying exclusively on one's own capacity to interpet texts to ascertain for oneself 'whether the Buddha taught it or not' - to what extent does such an approach bend the Dhamma to the dictates of individualism? And related to this we could ask: to what extent is such an ethos of individualism native to the Buddhism?

Let me reiterate that I do not deny the usefulness of consulting with canonical texts. Nor am I dismissing the need to clarify whether any particular way of thinking-practice accords with the Dhamma. What I wish to suggest is that in seeking to clarify 'what the Buddha taught', maybe we ought to be mindful of the historical situatedness of our preferred approach today, lest we mire ourselves in self-conceit about our own capacity 'to know' rather than allow the Dhamma to surprise us. Some of the most surprising discoveries I've had about the Dhamma is when I'm amidst other fellow practitioners, such as when I offer dana or simply sit with them to share a meal. Those instances of relationality are when I develop some of the deepest convictions about 'what the Buddha taught'.

:anjali:
With metta,
zavk
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by daverupa »

cooran wrote:I dont think this is a ''touchy-feely universalist'' thing - but involves resting the mind temporarily on particular individuals or groups of beings.
What do you reckon?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 87#p227787" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have a look; maybe this tangent can be pursued there, or anew with respect to "is it in the suttas" in terms of this sort of thing.

:heart:
  • "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]
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by Mr Man »

Following on from zavk's post.
I think that where we have a great opportunity to come into contact with the living teaching of the Buddha is through the Sangha, who have been keeping vinaya. This sangha is the legacy of the Buddha and the connection. Of cause we still need to be circumspect and use intelligence as well as referring to sutta/commentaries.
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by whynotme »

Dan74 wrote:Going over an old thread I saw this statement and the conclusion that therefore it is of no relevance. This logic appears to be quite common here and I'd like to query it in this thread, if I may.

Firstly, how can we be confident that every single teaching the Buddha gave has been recorded and passed down? I mean 45 years worth of teaching? Do we think we have it all??
Given that the earliest existing Pali document dates to about 1000 years after the Buddha's parinibbana, I think this is a big leap of faith.

Secondly, supposing that the Buddha really did not teach something (like the Ajahn Sumedho's Sound of Silence meditation for example). Does this mean it is irrelevant and of no use? This to me seems a big leap of logic. Surely we are a product of quite a different culture and quite a different conditioning to the audience the Buddha faced. Wouldn't it follow that some methods would be more appropriate today than they would've been 2500 years ago in India? A master may follow the Dhamma, attain liberation and elaborate the Buddha's teaching for his disciples in his (or her) own way appropriate to the culture and the audience.

Thoughts?
My opinion

Firstly, we should not be confident about something till we know/see it for sure. If a man sees something by his own eyes, he is not confident/ not not confident, just simply knows it. Only the one doesn't see the reality would be confident in his belief.

The dhamma is for seeing/knowing, not for gaining ego/confidence

Also, even the Nikaya is true, there are chances that one may misinterprets what the Buddha said/ chances that comments are wrong and a lot of things like that. I believe an enlightened one (if they are) would read/view/interpret the Nikayas very different to normal people. It is like soldiers who were actually experienced war will view it very different to TV/movie/documents viewers even they view the same material.

Secondly, another mistake I saw people usually makes it that, OK, something worked then they assumed it will work on every different situations. I don't know what is sound of silence you mentioned, and assumed it worked for some people, then THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT, this technique worked in this very situation on this very condition. Don't be a fool to assumed that if a technique worked then the teacher is enlightened and that technique the right way to nirvana. Maybe a technique leads to a better position faster but it will block other long term achievements, be wise and be careful about that and know the technique's limit.

In the end, judging and choosing skills are the tools, also your kamma.

Regards.
Please stop following me
User avatar
Sokehi
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by Sokehi »

gendun wrote:
hermitwin wrote:You have a valid point.
we cant even be sure who said what a few seconds ago,
unless it was recorded on video or audio.
but even audio/video can be manipulated.

yet, the pali canon is the best available record of
buddha;s teachings that we have.
if you discard the pali canon, what are you left with?

ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the practice
and the results.

but if you ask me, i always trust the pali canon more than
any teacher in this world.
Horses for courses surely ?
Personally I find The Pali Canon so geared to a particular time and culture so as to render it of little use...to me. I need the interpretative skills of a teacher to make it live...for me.
Same for me... I've read the complete middle length discourses and though this is a agreeable enterprise I prefer a teacher to help out with his interpretations. Thankfully we have quite good access to many of them todays.
Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.
Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

https://www.youtube.com/user/Repeataarrr
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sokehi wrote:Same for me... I've read the complete middle length discourses and though this is a agreeable enterprise I prefer a teacher to help out with his interpretations. Thankfully we have quite good access to many of them todays.
The difficulty is that there is no concensus among the teachers...so it comes down to who one believes.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sokehi
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by Sokehi »

porpoise wrote:
Sokehi wrote:Same for me... I've read the complete middle length discourses and though this is a agreeable enterprise I prefer a teacher to help out with his interpretations. Thankfully we have quite good access to many of them todays.
The difficulty is that there is no concensus among the teachers...so it comes down to who one believes.
I absolutely agree... but still... we've got to know it for ourselves... and everyone else is just a translator of that 2500 year old tradition. I don't necessarilly believe anyone, but if I feel inspired and I notice that "it" works or helps with my practice, increases wellbeing and the ability to let go... than it must be good.
Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.
Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

https://www.youtube.com/user/Repeataarrr
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by mikenz66 »

porpoise wrote: The difficulty is that there is no concensus among the teachers...so it comes down to who one believes.
In the case of personal contact with Theravada teachers, my experience is that many of the apparent disagreements tend to evaporate.

:anjali:
Mike
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by whynotme »

Whether the buddha taught it or not, just follow the kalama sutta (the whole sutta, not the first commonly quoted part)

Regards
Please stop following me
mogg
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:44 am

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by mogg »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Proving that the Buddha didn't teach something is harder than showing that he did, but there is one method you can use, as he taught to his foster mother, Mahapajapati Gotami:
“Those things, Gotamī, regarding which you know, ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to liberation, not to bondage; to relinquishment, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to association; to arousing energy, not to laziness; to being easy to support, not to being hard to support,’ definitely, Gotamī, you can decide, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’”
Debating about what the Buddha taught or did not teach often leads to passion, not to dispassion.
:goodpost:
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: "The Buddha did not teach it..."

Post by alan »

Hi Dan.
Mining the old "Maybe there is something he didn't say" vein again? There is nothing to find.

As I'm sure you know, the Buddha said he was not holding anything back. The Pali Canon is vast, and often repetitive. If there was an idea spoken by the Buddha of any consequence, it's in there. Remember, people were following him around listening to his every word. If you insist there was a secret teaching, you'll have to come up with a reasonable scenario to explain it. And you can't.

If you want to talk about logic, you should start by following the rules of logic. No "leap of faith" is required to accept the veracity of the suttas. Perhaps you are leaping into the unknown, by presuming there is an answer which better suites your desires?
Post Reply