Your take on pre-sectarian Buddhism

[Watana]

Imagine you wanted to cross a river... would you be able to cross it by asking the other shore to come to you ? No. Would you be able to cross it by sitting still in front of the river, hoping that you'd get magically teleported to the other shore ? No.

The same thing applies to that state. You can't attain it through mere wishes, and trying to "still" your mind won't work either... because it's an emotional state. Emotions only arise in very specific conditions. In the case of "absolute contentment", the conditions are : renouncing pleasure, renouncing all your possessions, and renouncing your life. It's that simple.

But since this is too much to ask for any normal person, very few people get to experience it. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if I were the only person to have experienced it during the last decade... though maybe even that would be an understatement.

[Sam Vara]

In the case of "absolute contentment", the conditions are : renouncing pleasure, renouncing all your possessions, and renouncing your life. It's that simple.

But since this is too much to ask for any normal person, very few people get to experience it.

Should be a done deal for monastics, then. Go forth, get it.

[Watana]

Nah, you can't experience it if you hold religious beliefs, and this of course applies to Therawāda monks.

However, it is true that I would have no issue re-experiencing it if I were a renouncer. But well... that wouldn't work, not in this day and age.

[Sam Vara]

Nah, you can't experience it if you hold religious beliefs, and this of course applies to Therawāda monks.

Yes, if it is a once in a decade experience, then something must be preventing all those Theravada monks from attaining what you attained. It's likely to be all those silly religious beliefs they have picked up along the way. Yes, that makes sense!

[Watana]

Well, the so-called "Buddhist traditions" of nowadays hold the same beliefs as Brahmanism... you know... the very religion the Tathāgata fought against during his entire life.

[DNS]

I am of those who consider that the Aṭṭhaka-wagga and the Pārāyana-wagga (minus its introduction and epilogue) are truly authentic records.

These 2 small collection of suttas from the Sutta Nipata? Why these 2 and not the rest of the Sutta Nipata or from other Nikayas?

It sounds like some of those protestant denominations who take some obscure (or sometimes not so obscure) passages from the Bible and make a whole new religion / denomination out of it (snake handlers because a couple of Apostles handled snakes, making the Sabbath on Saturday, and other single passage denominations).

[Sam Vara]

Well, the so-called "Buddhist traditions" of nowadays hold the same beliefs as Brahmanism... you know... the very religion the Tathāgata fought against during his entire life.

Looks like you and the Buddha against the rest of the world, then. Good luck!

[Watana]

It's fine, I was never into bald guys anyways !

[Sam Vara]

It's fine, I was never into bald guys anyways !

Sssshhh!

*Check out the picture of the guy who owns this site, who posts as DNS!*

[Mr. Seek]

OP, you could find it useful to explore the meditative traditions of Shikantaza, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Prajnaparamita, etc., whose goal is something close to the state you are referring to. The main difference is that they attach a whole lot of instructions and additional information to their practices, rather than just telling the practitioner to quit the bullshit and unbind. You might get inspiration from them.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, the so-called "Buddhist traditions" of nowadays hold the same beliefs as Brahmanism... you know... the very religion the Tathāgata fought against during his entire life.

Strictly speaking Brahminism centred around the ritual, sacrifice and appeasing the Vedic gods in order to maintain cosmic order. The few Brahmins who lived a renunciate life were deviations from the standard mean, although well known. As for what they taught, whilst it’s true the Buddha borrowed some of their terminology (as he did from the Jains from his time with them) the metaphysics and central message of the Buddha and the Upanishads are different. If we look to Theravada, it has inherited some of the Upanishadic terminology and, depending on the Theravadin, some of the ideas but it’s still a very different outlook to the Upanishads.

Regarding the A&P I agree that there is a case for them being old material, as per the arguments by Norman and Wynne. They are also one of my favourite parts of the cannon. I read them almost daily and reflect upon them a lot. However, it’s an extraordinary leap from that to “all other suttas are trash”. Given that the Buddha taught for 40 + years it is to be expected that his material, as it were, changed due to the new audiences he would encounter. By change of course I mean elaboration, rather than change in truth. Just because we don’t find certain lists in the A&P it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Buddha never taught them later on.

Having said that, there are other arguments around. Sujato’s for example, where the SN is the foundational text. This also has some weight to it.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

It's fine, I was never into bald guys anyways !

Sssshhh!

*Check out the picture of the guy who owns this site, who posts as DNS!*

And, who coincidentally happens to be in the uppermost echelon of wizardry in the field of listology concerning the Buddha

[sphairos]

Dear Watana,

You think that you are unique both in terms of achieving an ultimate state (the state of the Buddha?) and in terms of realizing the truth about the historical development of Buddhism.

You are not unique. There is an imageboard of the self-proclaimed arahant (Buddha) on the net, where there is a special division for claims about reaching the enlightenment or the milestones on the way to it, and there are new guys and girls almost every day who claim that they achieved "the truth". But we don't here much about them after those claims. If they were Buddhas, they sure would have been praised and known for their purity and insight.

The unqiueness of the Sutta-nipāta and especially Aṭṭhakavagga was recognized already some 110 years ago by Western scholars (Dines Andersen and Helmer Smith made a careful and thorough edition, glossary and indexes for the text), and some 2250 years ago by ancient Buddhist scholars, who had devoted the most of their effort to commenting and preserving the meaning of the Sutta-nipāta and Aṭṭhakavagga, compared to the amount of effort invested in commenting the other parts of the ancient canon.

A remarkable Pāli scholar C. A .F Rhys Davids more than hundred years ago was claiming that original Buddhism was a mystical teaching on the unattached wandering of the Soul in the world, quite like your interpretation of the Aṭṭhakavagga, and the "monachism" corrupted and perverted it (quite like Alexander Wynne states in his latest articles).

Your view is greatly influenced by Wynne's one, but Wynne's view is radical and highly contested (see the criticism of his position in the papers of ven. Anālayo in the last five years).

As you can see, you views and claims are not unique, but a typical, well-trodden path for a neophyte, and, if you research the matters deeper, you will find serious objections to them.

The teaching of the Aṭṭhakavagga is in no way contradictory to the teaching of the Nikāyas, as demonstrated in the recent works of Gil Fronsdal and Bhikkhu Bodhi -- it is used throughout the Pāli canon and its teaching nowhere contradicts the teaching of the Nikāyas. The long held idea that the Sutta-nipāta and Aṭṭhakavagga is older than the rest of the material and represent an older or initial stage of development of Buddhism, -- "original", "non-sectarian Buddhism" -- is no longer considered to be correct, rather it was a special mode and genre of doctrinal composition in Early Buddhist teaching, connected to the life of the community during the seasons of wandering. The Sutta-nipāta may more fruitfully be viewed as a more mystical, transcending the boundaries of ordinary perception complement to the more rational teachings of the main Nikāyas, a different way of expression of the same message, a tribute to the transcendent, mystical and quietist in the human nature, rather than an "original teaching" of the Buddha. It it part of the original teaching of the Buddha, as important and original, as the rest of the canon. If you like this little inspiring mystical part, you will like the rest of the Teaching.

The Buddhist teaching was designed by the Buddha for different individuals with different temperaments, views and psychology. It is nowhere said, that you must follow, learn by heart and fulfill all the lists of Aṅguttara-nikāya in your life and your practice. You may rather take inspiration from the Aṭṭhakavagga in your practice, as many practitioners do. But you will find it very difficult to find yourself in any interpersonal situation as neither "inferior", "equal" or "superior" as the Aṭṭhakavagga teaches. And here the mostly rational and practical teachings of the rest of the Nikāyas, Vinaya and Abhidhamma may be of great service.

And if you can actually be always neither inferior nor equal nor superior towards other people, you are already a Buddha and have nothing to learn from him...

[DNS]

It's fine, I was never into bald guys anyways !

Sssshhh!

*Check out the picture of the guy who owns this site, who posts as DNS!*

And, who coincidentally happens to be in the uppermost echelon of wizardry in the field of listology concerning the Buddha

Yes, I love lists; even before becoming a Buddhist, I have always liked lists. I recently updated my Top 10 (and Top 25) chess players of all-time list:
https://www.dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5492

[thomaslaw]

Thanks to this wonderful website that logged me out (without telling me) while I was typing a huge text, I can no longer present you what I spent half an hour working on. Therefore, I'll take a more straightforward approach :

In your opinion, what was original Buddhism like, exactly ?

Original Buddhism was, exactly, like the teachings of Samyukta/Samyutta