what the buddha taught

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by meindzai »

tiltbillings wrote:
kayy wrote:But most people (at least in Theravada) seem to accept that the suttas are what the Buddha taught, right?
Scholar of early Pali Buddhism, Richard Gombrich, states: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts, the suttas] is not the work of one genius." I agree with this.
Awesome - that's exactly how I feel. Given the size and scope of the Pali canon it is remarkably consistent and clear. The nikayas alone just about fill an entire bookshelf. If it isn't the work of a singular genius it is then the work of multiple geniuses working in such a display of harmony as has never been witnessed in any other body of work. If it's the case that it's more than one person then I'm fine with compositing that group into a being I call "The Buddha" just the same.

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

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings meindzai,

Not being a scholar, but having read the MN, SN & DN cover-to-cover, and having read bits and pieces of AN & KN along the way, I'm inclined to agree with you.

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: what the buddha taught

Post by tiltbillings »

seanpdx wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
kayy wrote:But most people (at least in Theravada) seem to accept that the suttas are what the Buddha taught, right?
Scholar of early Pali Buddhism, Richard Gombrich, states: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts, the suttas] is not the work of one genius." I agree with this. This is not something that can be proved or disproved. It is one scholar’s educated impression, based upon a very critical, long term study of these texts and the historical context of the Buddha. I think it can be argued reasonably from any number of angles that the early monks did a decent job of preserving the Buddha’s teachings, which is not to say there are no historical issues to be considered in the "preservation" of the Buddha's teachings. Again, there is no definitive, final objective proof for or against these claims.
And while tilt happily cites one particular scholar who does, in fact, accept the bulk of the canon as being authentic, he does a disservice in not citing contrary opinions from other scholars.
Disservice? Only in your opinion, which to misses the fact that what I was expressing is my opinion, which is nicely voiced by Gombrich.
Katy: Rarely will people give you more than one side. Find as many sides as possible.
I seemed to have acknowledged in my posting that there is more than one side, and in a different context, I would have no problem with quoting others who see things differently. But this pointy little bit of yours raises the question does one eally need to become a Buddhologist to practice the Dhamma? How much is really necessary for us to know in term of scholary study of the history of Buddhism in order to practice the Dhamma, which seems to be an implied the PO's question?
>> 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: what the buddha taught

Post by tiltbillings »

Katy,

In reading through your response to me and your “depression” msg, I think I see what you are struggling with. One teacher that I had would say: Keep it light and easy. Do not get so grim about it. Part of the problem is that you are looking at texts that are directed at monastics, and the Buddha can be quite uncompromising in his exhortation to the monks and nuns. It is context and to whom these texts are addressed that is actually quite important to consider. You are not a monastic, so do not have take that level of practice as a model for your practice. There is no need for it.

I would strongly suggest backing off more than a bit from the stuff that is depressing you, that you find difficult. Just give yourself some space. There is really nice book out there by Jack Kornfield called A PATH WITH HEART. He is a very, very experienced teacher. This book, which is the result of his years of teaching, is well worth spending with. It will help you get some balance dealing with these issues. I would strongly recommend it.

tilt
>> 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
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by seanpdx »

tiltbillings wrote:
seanpdx wrote:And while tilt happily cites one particular scholar who does, in fact, accept the bulk of the canon as being authentic, he does a disservice in not citing contrary opinions from other scholars.
Disservice? Only in your opinion, which to misses the fact that what I was expressing is my opinion, which is nicely voiced by Gombrich.
In terms of objectivity, it's a disservice.
Katy: Rarely will people give you more than one side. Find as many sides as possible.
I seemed to have acknowledged in my posting that there is more than one side, and in a different context, I would have no problem with quoting others who see things differently. But this pointy little bit of yours raises the question does rone eally need to become a Buddhologist to practice the Dhamma? How much is really necessary for us to know in term of scholary study of the history of Buddhism in order to practice the Dhamma, which seems to be an implied the PO's question?
To practice? No, and not much, respectively. But I read the OP from an epistemological perspective, not merely the perspective of someone who wishes to practice. On the other hand... the case can be made that if one doesn't really know what the Buddha taught, then one doesn't really know whether one is practicing the Buddha's dhamma.
User avatar
baratgab
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:55 pm
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by baratgab »

kayy wrote:Maybe some people would tell me that by returning to my worldly attachments, I was just running away from my suffering, trying to find solace in impermanent things.

This is true.

But when you suffer from depression, and when you are suicidally depressed, it is simply not a viable option to delve into it. It is too dangerous: what lies further into depression but psychosis and possible suicide?

Distraction is really the only option (in the immediate term anyway). After... then you can deal with the underlying problems. But depressives need external support, distractions, family, friends, exercise, etc.
Most people come to Buddhism with a fault-finding mind, and they practice Buddhism with a fault-finding mind. When the dhamma teaches that there is something better than what we have, we start to see that there is something wrong in what we have... When the dhamma teaches stilling the mind, we wrestle the mind... No wonder that we suffer. :)

And the best part is that suffering Buddhists actually condition others for suffering too, with their involuntary way of expressing the dhamma. Because of this, it is paramount to keep in mind in every single moment that the true doctrine have one taste, the taste of freedom, just like the taste of salt in the ocean. That the true path is free from torture, free from groaning and free from suffering. If your experience differs, the problem is not with the dhamma, but the problem is that what you have is not the dhamma. If there is awareness regarding this in the mind, then there is a chance of discovering the true dhamma.
"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline there is but one taste — the taste of freedom"
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by seanpdx »

Ben wrote:
seanpdx wrote: And while tilt happily cites one particular scholar who does, in fact, accept the bulk of the canon as being authentic, he does a disservice in not citing contrary opinions from other scholars.
That's a cheap shot. If you want an alternative point of view Sean, I suggest you pull your finger out and back up your argument with citations yourself. Its not anyone else's responsibility except yours.
Actually, it wasn't a shot at all. Tilt is one of the few folks around here whose opinion I genuinely regard rather highly.
Gombrich is very highly regarded and considered by many as an authority.
Thank you. I'll look him up.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by BlackBird »

Hi Sean

What are your motives for posting here?

I ask as a friend, not as a foe.

metta
Jack :heart:
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by seanpdx »

BlackBird wrote:Hi Sean

What are your motives for posting here?

I ask as a friend, not as a foe.

metta
Jack :heart:
Read my first two posts. My motive is to answer Katy's question objectively.

Of course, the topic has strayed somewhat since her OP, so I've since ended up sending her a PM.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by tiltbillings »

seanpdx wrote:]

In terms of objectivity, it's a disservice.
I am giving a considered opinion, which is not being objective: it is an opinion.
To practice? No, and not much, respectively. But I read the OP from an epistemological perspective, not merely the perspective of someone who wishes to practice. On the other hand... the case can be made that if one doesn't really know what the Buddha taught, then one doesn't really know whether one is practicing the Buddha's dhamma.
What the Buddha taught, what the tradition teaches. Since we cannot know with objective certainty what the Buddha taught, though I have studied at some length, in terms of practice, I do not get too terribly worried about it, but we can know pretty much what the tradition teaches, and that is workable.
>> 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
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by seanpdx »

tiltbillings wrote:
seanpdx wrote:]

In terms of objectivity, it's a disservice.
I am giving a considered opinion, which is not being objective: it is an opinion.
To practice? No, and not much, respectively. But I read the OP from an epistemological perspective, not merely the perspective of someone who wishes to practice. On the other hand... the case can be made that if one doesn't really know what the Buddha taught, then one doesn't really know whether one is practicing the Buddha's dhamma.
What the Buddha taught, what the tradition teaches. Since we cannot know with objective certainty what the Buddha taught, though I have studied at some length, in terms of practice, I do not get too terribly worried about it, but we can know pretty much what the tradition teaches, and that is workable.
No doubt we know what the tradition teaches -- on that I don't disagree in the least bit. But let's face it... most of the responses she's likely to get here will be from the traditional perspective. A little variety is nice, n'est-ce pas?
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by BlackBird »

seanpdx wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Hi Sean

What are your motives for posting here?

I ask as a friend, not as a foe.

metta
Jack :heart:
Read my first two posts. My motive is to answer Katy's question objectively.

Of course, the topic has strayed somewhat since her OP, so I've since ended up sending her a PM.
I meant in general mate, sorry for not being clear.

metta
Jack :heart:
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by seanpdx »

BlackBird wrote:
seanpdx wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Hi Sean

What are your motives for posting here?

I ask as a friend, not as a foe.

metta
Jack :heart:
Read my first two posts. My motive is to answer Katy's question objectively.

Of course, the topic has strayed somewhat since her OP, so I've since ended up sending her a PM.
I meant in general mate, sorry for not being clear.

metta
Jack :heart:
Kinda off-topic, eh? Perhaps that's a question more suitable for a PM?
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by appicchato »

baratgab wrote:That the true path is free from torture, free from groaning and free from suffering.
Sorry...the path is full of torture, groaning, and suffering...it's only when one is liberated that these things are eliminated...then the path has been followed to the end (and the goal has been reached)...i.e. no more path...

My read anyway...
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: what the buddha taught

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sean,
seanpdx wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
seanpdx wrote:And while tilt happily cites one particular scholar who does, in fact, accept the bulk of the canon as being authentic, he does a disservice in not citing contrary opinions from other scholars.
Disservice? Only in your opinion, which to misses the fact that what I was expressing is my opinion, which is nicely voiced by Gombrich.
In terms of objectivity, it's a disservice.
Well, why not cite some yourself then? Retro gave a link to Bhikkhu Sujato, who has his own particular slant on what he considers authentic and what he doesn't.

Here's Bhikhu Bodhi (In the Buddha's Words, page 9, from the PDF here: http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display ... yValue=104)
Even though we can detect clear signs of historical development between
different portions of the canon, this alignment with a single school
gives the texts a certain degree of uniformity. Among the texts stemming
from the same period, we can even speak of a homogeneity of
contents, a single flavor underlying the manifold expressions of the
doctrine. This homogeneity is most evident in the four Nikayas and the
older parts of the fifth Nikaya and gives us reason to believe that with
these texts—allowing for the qualification expressed above, that they
have counterparts in other extinct Buddhist schools—we have reached
the most ancient stratum of Buddhist literature discoverable.
Metta
Mike
Post Reply