Certainly neither the venerable [Ven. Nanananda] nor I [Ven. Analayo] would advocate a sort of Sutta or Early Buddhism fundamentalism wherein the Theravāda tradition is rejected; it is more a matter of treading a middle path between complete reliance on textual orthodoxy and complete reliance on personal opinions and the potential arrogance of subjectivity.
Early Buddhist Fundamentalism
[Ven. Sujato] transcribed by SDA from first lecture on a workshop on Early Buddhism https://youtu.be/JEndmSICHQY
Another thing we need to be careful of is that we don’t fall into a[n] Early Buddhist fundamentalism. Ok. So, this is something which is quite easy to do. So we can say, “Oh, yes, this is right, because this is something [̴i̴s̴]̴ in Early Buddhism, and that’s wrong because that is something in later Buddhism”. Ok? Early dosen’t mean right. Late doesn’t mean wrong. Ok? Well this is not aslo a sectarian argument; it is not about saying that some schools of Buddhisms are right because they are early and other schools of Buddhism are wrong because they’re late. Thats’s not the point. The point is simply to try to understand what it is that the buddha taught and try to put that in a context of the time and place, so that we can appreciate what he’s saying better. Once we understand that, we can then put into context all the developments in the schools, we can understand why certain ideas were emphasized, why somethings were changed, why somethings were added, why somethings were left out. And, we can look at the history. We can understand how each of the Buddhist traditions has adapted the dhamma to their own time and place, and what’s even more important: we can understand how we are doing that here and now. ...
What is the point of the above when the various EBT fundamentalists cannot even agree on the EBTs?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
We can understand how each of the Buddhist traditions has adapted the dhamma to their own time and place, and what’s even more important: we can understand how we are doing that here and now. ...
I find that very often this turns into "therefore, radical socialism"
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
We can understand how each of the Buddhist traditions has adapted the dhamma to their own time and place, and what’s even more important: we can understand how we are doing that here and now. ...
I agree.
A probable problem with the above is it appears to take for granted that those "adapters" of Dhamma actually understood the True Dhamma but then adapted it. This appears unlikely.
Certainly neither the venerable [Ven. Nanananda] nor I [Ven. Analayo] would advocate a sort of Sutta or Early Buddhism fundamentalism wherein the Theravāda tradition is rejected;
I agree.
The above statement appears to implicitly admit or concede there is something implicitly wrong with the Theravada tradition.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
We can understand how each of the Buddhist traditions has adapted the dhamma to their own time and place, and what’s even more important: we can understand how we are doing that here and now. ...
I find that very often this turns into "therefore, radical socialism"
Well said.
It can even turn into something like ... "Four Noble Truths must be later addition." ... as in Navayana Buddhism.
The second problem is created by the four Aryan Truths. Do they form part of the original teachings of the Buddha? This formula cuts at the root of Buddhism. If life is sorrow, death is sorrow and rebirth is sorrow, then there is an end of everything. Neither religion nor philosophy can help a man to achieve happiness in the world. If there is no escape from sorrow, then what can religion do, what can Buddha do to relieve man from such sorrow which is ever there in birth itself? The four Aryan Truths are a great stumbling block in the way of non-Buddhists accepting the gospel of Buddhism. For the four Aryan Truths deny hope to man. The four Aryan Truths make the gospel of the Buddha a gospel of pessimism. Do they form part of the original gospel or are they a later accretion by the monks ?
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:34 am
Then, you must be in this shot
I think I'm one of the three monks to the right. The tallest. The one I thought I was sitting beside is one of the bhikkhunis... it would have been a little scandal to sit beside them!
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:34 am
Then, you must be in this shot
I think I'm one of the three monks to the right. The tallest. The one I thought I was sitting beside is one of the bhikkhunis... it would have been a little scandal to sit beside them!