Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:As for the Simpasa Sutta, how is it the the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts (and here I am NOT talking about later Abhidhamma expositions) step outside what the Buddha taught as being necessary for awakening?
I could not add anything new and relevant which has not already been covered in the Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate, regarding whether it is classifiable under "those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught".
tiltbillings wrote:
To extend the analogy, would someone need to undertake a careful study and practice of the actual Mahayana texts in order to decide they were not essential for enlightenment? If so, why?
If you have no idea what is in them, how would you know?
You would know, because the Buddha and the Arahants did not use them. Note the difference between "not essential for enlightenment" and "not conducive to enlightenment". You can logically say something is "not essential for enlightenment" without having a clue about whether or not it is "conducive to enlightenment". Hence, why I thought your interrogation of Dugu's comment was not particularly well targeted in terms of its logic.

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: Wouldn't the instruction of the Simsapa Sutta, in conjunction with observations such as that made by Ajahn Sujato regarding the Abhidhamma Pitaka be sufficient basis for Dugu's comments ...
Since this is, after all, a Theravada Forum, it might be reasonable to consider going beyond the "lowest common denominator" approach advocated by Ajahn Sujato and at least consider the logically consistent position that that the Theravada Tipitika and Commentaries are accurate and those of the other sects are not.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:As for the Simpasa Sutta, how is it the the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts (and here I am NOT talking about later Abhidhamma expositions) step outside what the Buddha taught as being necessary for awakening?
I could not add anything new and relevant which has not already been covered in the Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate, regarding whether it is classifiable under "those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught".
I have not been following that thread, so I have no idea what arguments have been made there. I have no problem with accepting the idea that the Buddha did not teach the texts in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but that deoes not mean that what is containted in those texts runs counter to the teachings of the Buddha either in letter or spirit.
tiltbillings wrote:
To extend the analogy, would someone need to undertake a careful study and practice of the actual Mahayana texts in order to decide they were not essential for enlightenment? If so, why?
If you have no idea what is in them, how would you know?
You would know, because the Buddha and the Arahants did not use them. Note the difference between "not essential for enlightenment" and "not conducive to enlightenment".
What is essential for awakeing? Is every sutta in the Sutta Pitaka an essential necessity for awakeing? Could what is essential be recast in a way that is skifulfull and appropriate to the situation?

There are reasaons to not accept the Mahayana sutras as Buddha-word, but I do not find it very meaningful to do so without some idea of what one might find in them. I do not find it at all appropriate to dismiss the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts without a clue as to what they say and how they are to be used.
You can logically say something is "not essential for enlightenment" without having a clue about whether or not it is "conducive to enlightenment".
If one has not a clue as to what is actually contained within a text, then there is no basis to say it is not essential for awakening.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: Wouldn't the instruction of the Simsapa Sutta, in conjunction with observations such as that made by Ajahn Sujato regarding the Abhidhamma Pitaka be sufficient basis for Dugu's comments ...
Since this is, after all, a Theravada Forum, it might be reasonable to consider going beyond the "lowest common denominator" approach advocated by Ajahn Sujato and at least consider the logically consistent position that that the Theravada Tipitika and Commentaries are accurate and those of the other sects are not.
How would you know that?
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:You can logically say something is "not essential for enlightenment" without having a clue about whether or not it is "conducive to enlightenment".
If one has not a clue as to what is actually contained within a text, then there is no basis to say it is not essential for awakening.
That depends on what "it" is... the text itself or the wisdom obtainable from the text? I was talking of the text itself, as I assume Dugu was.

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:You can logically say something is "not essential for enlightenment" without having a clue about whether or not it is "conducive to enlightenment".
If one has not a clue as to what is actually contained within a text, then there is no basis to say it is not essential for awakening.
That depends on what "it" is... the text itself or the wisdom obtainable from the text? I was talking of the text itself, as I assume Dugu was.
The text as the container of what might or might not be essential, but if you do not know what is in the text, how do you know?

We take on faith that something is essential to awakening until we awaken, then we know, but my point is that dismissing the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts without knowing what is in them might not be the wisest thing to do.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,

Sure... but the focus of Ajahn Sujato's article is not on what is conducive to enlightenment (a worthwhile subject in itself, yes, but not this one), but on identifying what the Buddha taught and did not teach, and the role that myths in Buddhist history have played in obfuscating the two.
Ajahn Sujato wrote:All of these are myths, and do not deserve serious consideration as explanations of historical truth. Their purpose, as myths, is not to elucidate facts, but to authorize religious convictions.
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."
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by Paññāsikhara »

retrofuturist wrote: You would know, because the Buddha and the Arahants did not use them.
Well, if we take this line of approach, the Buddha' didn't even "use" the suttas or the vinaya, either.
And there were quite a few Arhats before the vinaya appeared.
In fact, the first five Arhats only heard one or two suttas before their awakening.

Can we thus argue that the vast majority, if not all, of the suttas, along with the vinaya, are dispensible too?

Obviously not, nor do I mean that this is what you are saying. However, taking certain lines of logical thought to their natural conclusions, can often lead to results that are rather over the top.

Moreover, unless one assumes that the only "arhats" in existence, are those in the Suttas, there probably have been more than a few Arhats over the centuries that did in fact use the Abhidhamma, and commenatarial material, etc. too.

Moreover, with respect to the Simsapa Sutta notion of dhamma that is not taught, there is also a flip-side of dhammas that were taught but are no longer extant: One can also argue that not all of the Buddha's teachings are included in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas, either. I'd say that he would have taught a huge amount of basic Dhamma to large groups of lay persons, that is, somewhat surprisingly, not to be found in the Sutta pitaka. So, what happened to a large number of these teachings? Well, they are preserved, though perhaps in a somewhat different form, in latter texts, such as the Jatakas, Avadanas, etc. Now, this is basically just material that was compiled at the same time as the Abhidhamma, and early parts of the commentaries too. Do we then throw all that out as well? Without even looking at it?
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Sure... but the focus of Ajahn Sujato's article is not on what is conducive to enlightenment (a worthwhile subject in itself, yes, but not this one), but on identifying what the Buddha taught and did not teach, and the role that myths in Buddhist history have played in obfuscating the two.
I know, but I was responding to a very specific comment that characertized the Abhidhamma in a way that suggested not really knowing what was in the actual texts:
Dugu wrote: I was strictly referring to Abhidhamma. There is one wisdom that the Buddha taught was not to pursue things that isn't conducive to the holy life such as when some disciples want to know whether the universe is eternal or not eternal, whether there is a god or not, etc... the Buddha refuse to answer these questions because it is not going to help them to be liberated. And I believe the Buddha has already taught all we need to know to follow the path in the Sutta Pitaka and we should focus on following the path than indulge more on understanding the nature of reality which can be a hinderance to your practice if you are not careful. Not to say it can't help, you may gain some extra insights from studying Abhidhamma but it really isn't necessary. That's all I am saying.
>> 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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: Since this is, after all, a Theravada Forum, it might be reasonable to consider going beyond the "lowest common denominator" approach advocated by Ajahn Sujato and at least consider the logically consistent position that that the Theravada Tipitika and Commentaries are accurate and those of the other sects are not.
How would you know that?
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me re-phrase it:
"It is logically possible that the Theravada Commentaries are correct, and the other sects are wrong. This is, of course, the view of the Theravada Tradition..."
Ajahn Sujuato and his ilk are using the working assumption that:
"The correct things are those which everyone agrees on".
This is a useful way to analyse the data, but does not necessarily lead to the "correct" conclusion. Obviously one could quote historical examples in science and other areas where the majority turned out to be wrong.

Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote: Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me re-phrase it: . . .
Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with you.
>> 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
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by Paññāsikhara »

mikenz66 wrote:... Let me re-phrase it:
"It is logically possible that the Theravada Commentaries are correct, and the other sects are wrong. This is, of course, the view of the Theravada Tradition..."
Ajahn Sujuato and his ilk are using the working assumption that:
"The correct things are those which everyone agrees on".
This is a useful way to analyse the data, but does not necessarily lead to the "correct" conclusion. Obviously one could quote historical examples in science and other areas where the majority turned out to be wrong.

Mike
That is a very good point, Mike. And thanks for bringing us back to the OP.

Furthermore, Bhante Sujato lists "a number of criteria", which are worth investigating.
Let us take a poke at the first five, to begin with:
Simplicity: Shorter, more basic teachings are likely to have appeared earlier than complex, scholastic elaborations. This is one of the fundamentals of historical criticism.
Is this really "one of the fundamental of historical criticism"? Perhaps. But, as far as "textual criticism" goes, particularly biblical and classics, in addition to:

The shortest reading is, in general, the best. -- "Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, præferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum (Griesbach)."

there is also the maxim:

The more difficult reading is also the more probable. -- "Proclivi scriptioni pr stat ardua"
Multiple Attestation: Teachings appearing more often are likely to be more authentic than those less frequent. This of course only applies to independent attestation, not mere repetition.
The last point is critical - "independent attestation, not mere repetition", because we often do not know entirely clearing the process whereby the early texts were compiled. Thus, there may be more repetition in there than originally thought.
Similarity: Teachings congruent in style, form, or content with known early teachings are more likely to be authentic than heterodox passages.
Doesn't this beg the question - ie. "... with known early teachings"? How do we know that they are early before undergoing this process?
Dissimilarity: Teachings dissimilar to other traditions, whether pre-Buddhist or later Buddhism, are unlikely to have appeared through assimilation or revision and thus are likely to be authentic. Notice that this principle does not say that teachings held in common with other traditions are inauthentic; it simply can’t tell.
But, on the other hand, due to sectarian sentiment, "dissimilar" teachings which differ from other traditions, may be given more emphasis to emphasis the unique doctrines of a given line of thought. There are examples of this in many places, for instance, the "self power" vs "other power" of Zen and Pureland. The extreme "other power" of late Japanese Pureland does not represent early Pureland in China, from which it derives. It only developed this "dissimilar" teaching in the context of other Japanese schools.
Concordance between Nikayas and Agamas: The essential congruence of the Nikayas and the Agamas is probably the most important finding of modern Buddhist studies, and should become a standard criterion in all matters concerning early Buddhism. Although the basic findings are in, there remains much work to be done in sorting out the finer details.
This is the one Mike is kind of countering, above. However, given that much of the Agamas are also Sthavira / Thera, then what we have is a lot of Sthavira / Thera material, but little from the Mahasamghikas. We can only thus confirm the similarities to the point of the break up of the various Sthavira / Thera schools, but not to the Buddha himself.

Caution: Prepare to fall into a sectarian position, and call it "the true teaching of the historical Buddha".
Oh, haven't we heard this one before?
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

Then we get into the old Buddhist camps of the Mahàyàna, Vajrayàna and Hãnayàna. We’re considered Hãnayàna or ‘lesser vehicle.’ So we could think that means it’s probably not as good. Mahàyàna is better, says logic. Lesser vehicle and greater vehicle. Then Vajrayàna, that’s the absolute best. You can’t get any better than Vajrayàna according to the Tibetans. That’s the highest vehicle. So then we start thinking in terms of good, better, best. But all of these are conventions. Whether we call it Mahàyàna, Hãnayàna or Vajrayàna, they’re still just conventions:they’re limited; they’re imperfect. They’re functional,to be used for mindfulness rather than as some kind of attachment or position that one takes on anything. These different terms can be very divisive. If we attach to Theravàda and start looking down on every other form of Buddhism, then we think that they’re not pure, they’re not original! They’re higher, but they’re not original. We can get arrogant because we’ve got our own way of justifying our convention. But this is all playing with words. If we look at what is going on in words, we’re just creating Mahàyàna, Hãnayàna and Vajrayàna in our minds. The refuge is in Buddha, not in these ‘yànas’. The Buddha knows that every thought is changing and not-self. So trust in that, in the simplicity of that. Because if you don’t, then it is going to arouse your old compulsive habits of thinking “I’ve got to do more, I’ve got to develop this, I’ve got to become a Bodhisattva, I’ve got to get the higher practice going,” and on and on like that.

When you’re caught in that conventional realm and that’s all you know, then you’re easily intimidated and blinded by all the dazzling positions and attitudes and ideas that people can throw at you. So this is where trusting in awareness is not a matter of having the best or feeling that maybe you should have something better than what you have. That’s a creation of your mind, isn’t it? When you establish what is adequate, it’s not based on what is the best but on what is basic for survival and good health.


Intuitive Awareness by Ajahn Sumedho
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings bhante,

Thank you as usual for your insightful thoughts on these matters.
Paññāsikhara wrote:Do we then throw all that out as well? Without even looking at it?
Not at all... the type of analysis venerable Sujato focuses on has no bearing on the efficacy of these teachings. That which is useful should not be discarded regardless of its origins. I've heard some people say that the commentaries, Abhidhamma, Mahayana Sutras etc. belong on the bottom of the ocean, but I do not subscribe to that theory.

What venerable Sujato seeks to do is to help identify what the Buddha taught versus what he didn't teach, and he sees traditional Buddhist myths as getting in the way of such a pursuit... thus he wants to call them out for what they are. As we've discussed on many occasions, identifying "what the Buddha taught" is a challenging pursuit, but as Pink Trike said earlier, it is...
pink trike wrote:...certainly difficult to address at any intelligent level of discourse within what has become a closed system that has a prevailing standard of "Buddha said it, I believe it".
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."
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by Paññāsikhara »

retrofuturist wrote:
What venerable Sujato seeks to do is to help identify what the Buddha taught versus what he didn't teach, and he sees traditional Buddhist myths as getting in the way of such a pursuit... thus he wants to call them out for what they are.
I'd like to make a qualifier here:

I've met too many Buddhist practitioners, who have such "mythic" beliefs, who, partly because of those beliefs, apply themselves very whole heartedly to their practice of the Dharma, and as a result, are endowed with love, compassion, warmth, wisdom and insight, to think that they "get in the way of such a pursuit" should not be applied as a blanket term.

If, for ourselves, they get in the way, then that is one thing, but we must acknowledge it as such. And, if we acknowledge that such an "historical" approach works for us, but then a "mythic" approach works for others, to the degree that they "work", they may just be equal. And, as many later traditions have been telling us for some time, we end up with a case of being able to classify them all (equally) as "expedient means".

Otherwise, just another case of "ekameva saccam moghamannam" - "only this is true, all else is false". We think that our personal expedient is ultimate, and that it is only the other expedients that are somehow not. This may blind us, one day, when, under differing circumstances, stagnation in practice, and so forth, the application of other methods is sometimes what we need to advance further.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Post Reply