"Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

"Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by sphairos »

Basically, what this author says is that ven. Anālayo mischaracterized the "secular Buddhism".

https://secularbuddhistnetwork.org/what ... raditions/

I learnt from this response that ven. Anālayo touches upon very interesting things in this book:
I am not a scholar in Early Buddhist texts so I can’t assess Bhikkhu Analayo’s claim that Stephen has misinterpreted important aspects of Early Buddhism, including the role of monasticism, the structure of sanghas, the nature of nirvana, rebirth, etc. Bhikkhu Analayo’s basic point is that Stephen is cherry picking from Early Buddhist texts and that his interpretation is thus not consistent with the essential elements of the teachings. Bhikkhu Analayo asserts that a proper interpretation of Early Buddhist texts does not support a secular Buddhist perspective.
My desire to read the book increased, because you can get a short version, "in a nutshell" of how the venerable scholar sees the Early Buddhism :smile:

Has anybody read the book yet? What are your thoughts about it?
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by asahi »

(1)The deeply-entrenched sexism which devalues the role of women in sanghas; (2)the characterization of non-Mahāyāna Buddhism as inferior by Mahāyāna Buddhists; (3)the Theravādin claim that their central doctrines reflect the teachings of the original Buddha; (4)and the secular Buddhist assumption that all traditional forms of Buddhism are inferior to this new perspective.
1 Include Buddha Himself as sexist ?
2 Sectarian period buddhism shows different sects denigrate each other .
3 Theravadin is original buddhism ? Thai , Burmese , Sri lanka and Western Theravada buddhism?
4 Modern (western) interpretations !
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by mikenz66 »

sphairos wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:57 pm Has anybody read the book yet? What are your thoughts about it?
I've not read it all in detail, so can't comment in detail, but it is interesting to see Ven Analayo's thoughts (which he has expressed in many books and articles) gathered into a short volume. It's not so expensive as an EPUB from Wisdom.

Without reading it all in detail, I did have the thought that it is a pity that there is not a chapter on "The conceit of the EBT approach". Ven Analayo is usually very careful to not take the view that "anything that is not early is rubbish", but it would be nice to see that conceit explicitly highlighted.

Since it's now Easter, perhaps I can finish it soon!

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:22 am Without reading it all in detail, I did have the thought that it is a pity that there is not a chapter on "The conceit of the EBT approach".
Is it actually "conceit" to have the intention to follow the
actual Buddha's actual teachings? 🤔
Ani Sutta wrote:Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Or maybe instead of being "conceit", it is actually one's refuge, and one's instruction on how they should train themselves? 🤔

In fact, I'd suggest it's "conceit" to think that one knows the Dhamma better than a Sammasambuddha. If such "conceit" didn't exist, there would be no "traditions" other than that of the Buddha's dispensation itself. Maybe it's the conceit of "(my) tradition" which causes people to violate the instruction of the Ani Sutta? Maybe venerable Analayo doesn't want to disgrace himself in such a way, by sharing and entertaining Mike's interests?

In short, the notion of traditions, differentiated from the Dhammavinaya itself, is to imply that one tradition knows better than the Sammasambuddha himself. That itself is the "Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions".

:buddha1:

(I guess this is why I don't write books, I'd just get to the point in one page and we'd be done. 😂)

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by cappuccino »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:31 am Is it actually conceit to … follow the … actual teachings?
:sage:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by chownah »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:31 am Greetings,
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:22 am Without reading it all in detail, I did have the thought that it is a pity that there is not a chapter on "The conceit of the EBT approach".
Is it actually "conceit" to have the intention to follow the
actual Buddha's actual teachings? 🤔
Ani Sutta wrote:Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Or maybe instead of being "conceit", it is actually one's refuge, and one's instruction on how they should train themselves? 🤔
SN 35.207 Yavakalapi Sutta: The Sheaf of Barley
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
An excerpt:
"'I am' is an act of conceit. 'I am this' is an act of conceit. 'I shall be' is an act of conceit. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is an act of conceit. An act of conceit is a disease, an act of conceit is a cancer, an act of conceit is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of acts of conceit.'"
Mikenz66 eludes to there possibly being conceit in adherants of EBT (early buddhist tradition?)....it seems that retrofuturist has pointed out aspects of EBT adherants which probably do not qualify as being "conceit". I am thinking that while there certainly are aspect of EBT adherants which do not qualify as being "conceit" there are almost assuredly adherants of EBT which do qualify as being "conceit"....for instance if they are of the view "I am an adherant of EBT" then this seems to be an example of "I am this" as shown in the excerpt above......also if an adherant of EBT is of the view that EBT is better than XYZ then I think that there is likely some conceit going on there as well......
chownah
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by DooDoot »

sphairos wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:57 pm
I am not a scholar in Early Buddhist texts so I can’t assess Bhikkhu Analayo’s claim that Stephen has misinterpreted important aspects of Early Buddhism, including the role of monasticism, the structure of sanghas, the nature of nirvana, rebirth, etc. Bhikkhu Analayo’s basic point is that Stephen is cherry picking from Early Buddhist texts and that his interpretation is thus not consistent with the essential elements of the teachings. Bhikkhu Analayo asserts that a proper interpretation of Early Buddhist texts does not support a secular Buddhist perspective.
Bhikkhu Analayo’s allegations against Stephen do not necessarily mean Bhikkhu Analayo understands the suttas. This comedy between Dhamma Lite Stephen Batchelor vs The EBT Eternalists has been going on for years. Both sides could be incorrect in their ideas of the Dhamma.
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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by Kim OHara »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:04 am Bhikkhu Analayo’s allegations against Stephen do not necessarily mean Bhikkhu Analayo understands the suttas. This comedy between Dhamma Lite Stephen Batchelor vs The EBT Eternalists has been going on for years. Both sides could be incorrect in their ideas of the Dhamma.
Indeed. It is also possible that the whole idea that there is one singular correct view of the Dhamma is false.
:juggling:

In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
That includes me, of course. And you. And retro, naturally. Even Mike and Dan74 and ... you know, everyone else here and everyone else everywhere else. The best any of us can do is find our own understanding of the Dhamma and acknowledge that it is inevitably flawed.

So maybe we should just stop arguing about it. "You're wrong!" is logically unjustifiable, no matter who says it and who they are saying it to.

:thinking:
Kim
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
So no arya in the past two millennia according to Kim O'Hara. Buddhism's over apparently, let's pack it in folks.

🙄

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by DooDoot »

Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
That includes... you.
No. :mrgreen:
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.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by SteRo »

Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
That includes me, of course. And you. And retro, naturally. Even Mike and Dan74 and ... you know, everyone else here and everyone else everywhere else. The best any of us can do is find our own understanding of the Dhamma and acknowledge that it is inevitably flawed.
That depends on the use of the word "dhamma". Is it generic or conventional? If conventional it has to be treated as a term kind of 'registered by buddhism' and if generic it is just a variable for anybody's fabrication about an alleged 'reality'. And regardless of how its use is intended the user of the word as a speaker or writer does not have control of whether a hearer or reader understands it as generic or conventional.
Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am So maybe we should just stop arguing about it. "You're wrong!" is logically unjustifiable, no matter who says it and who they are saying it to.
The arguing is a necessary consequence of the mentality illusion and as such it is based on the universal flux of materiality as its basis. Only the "fittest" system of thought will "survive" (have continuity) and the "fittest" is that one that - being neither true nor false - neatly aligns with reality. Thus the "fittest" system of thought is a matter of evolution, too. It seems that materialistic science is quite close to the "fittest" system of thought.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by chownah »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:28 am Greetings,
Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
So no arya in the past two millennia according to Kim O'Hara. Buddhism's over apparently, let's pack it in folks.

🙄

Metta,
Paul. :)
It seems that you are saying that at no time in the life of an arya (even before awakening) did that arya have a wrong view of the dhamma? Kim ohara claims that at some time they had a wrong view....it seems that you are saying that in their life they never had a wrong view.

Please clarify.
chownah
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by cappuccino »

Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
I suggest the dhamma is still perfect


hence the tragedy is missing out
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:31 am Greetings,
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:22 am Without reading it all in detail, I did have the thought that it is a pity that there is not a chapter on "The conceit of the EBT approach".
Is it actually "conceit" to have the intention to follow the
actual Buddha's actual teachings? 🤔
Of course not.

It is clearly not easy to determine exactly which teachings are early, and how to understand them. If it were, there would not be so much discussion about some of the key points, here, and elsewhere. Therefore, it would be prudent to be sceptical of absolutist claims, as an absolutist might be suffering from "The conceit of the EBT approach".

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "Secular Buddhists" answer to ven. Anālayo's ‘Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions’

Post by Kim OHara »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:40 pm
Kim OHara wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:04 am In fact, I'm going to suggest that every single Buddhist in the last two thousand years has had an incorrect view of the Dhamma.
I suggest the dhamma is still perfect


hence the tragedy is missing out
:goodpost:

That, really, was one of the points I was trying to make: that none of us has a full and correct understanding of the dharma (and there may not even be such a thing) but it's still immensely valuable to us even if we grasp it imperfectly.

:namaste:
Kim
Post Reply