What the Buddha Thought

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

What the Buddha Thought

Post by Ceisiwr »

I've not watched it all so far, but this lecture by Richard Gombrich is quite enjoyable

“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.”
buddhamark
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:21 pm

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by buddhamark »

Long but great video. Richard Francis is truly an intelligent person.
dream about getting shot and not dying + positive affirmations
Misa9x
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 12, 2023 1:34 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by Misa9x »

The Buddha taught that everything in the world is impermanent and subject to change. Understanding and accepting this truth helps to alleviate suffering.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by form »

I read before Gombrich said the Buddha taught how not to rebirth.
User avatar
MikeRalphKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by MikeRalphKing »

I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, but I found his 'What the Buddha Thought' to be full of errors based on what strikes me as an unsystematic reading of the Pali Canon. I would be most interested to hear what anyone might think of the essay I wrote detailing what I think are his mistakes. https://www.stochasticpress.com/papers/ ... itique.pdf
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by robertk »

I had a skim and it looks like a great essay refuting the tedious assertions of Gombrich.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by cappuccino »

MikeRalphKing wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:24 am It is a mistake to believe that the doctrine of no-self is made comprehensible by qualifying ‘self’ with ‘unchanging’ or ‘permanent’.
The point is you change


You are not the same person you were
User avatar
MikeRalphKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by MikeRalphKing »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:12 pm
MikeRalphKing wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:24 am It is a mistake to believe that the doctrine of no-self is made comprehensible by qualifying ‘self’ with ‘unchanging’ or ‘permanent’.
The point is you change


You are not the same person you were
I'm an opponent of what I call the "Gombrich let-out clause", i.e. the idea that you can make sense of the Buddha's teachings of no-self by qualifying "self" with 'unchanging" or "permanent". For example when the Buddha admonishes his son in the Maharahulovada Sutta (MN 62), he tells him first to see in his body: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self." Rahula queries this, and the Buddha confirms that it applies to all 5 aggregates (as he does in many other suttas). It would make no sense at all to qualify "mine" with "unchanging", "I" with "unchanging, or "my self" with "unchanging". It would be a let-out clause, because if you do qualify self in this way, what work remains to be done? It is seen in an instant that the body is not my unchanging self, and similarly for the other aggregates. The hard work is to see that no corner of any aggregate is self in any conceivable way at all. So I agree with both you and the Buddha!
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by cappuccino »

MikeRalphKing wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:36 pm It would make no sense at all to qualify "mine" with "unchanging", "I" with "unchanging, or "my self" with "unchanging".
Do you think you’re the same person…


As you were in high school?
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by pegembara »

What the Buddha taught -

"I am" and "I am not" is a conceiving. I-making and mine-making. And the not I, not mine.
The self and not-self conundrum. The "I am not" presupposes an "I" that is not!
Conceiving is a disease, a dart, and a cancer. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of conceiving.’ -SN 35.248
The Root of All Things- MN1

The Ordinary Person

“He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in all, he conceives himself apart from all, he conceives all to be ‘mine,’ he delights in all. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

The Arahant
“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of greed, aversion, and delusion.

Do you think you’re the same person…
Whether you think you are the same person or you think you are not, is still a conceiving!
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
MikeRalphKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by MikeRalphKing »

pegembara wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:31 am What the Buddha taught -

"I am" and "I am not" is a conceiving. I-making and mine-making. And the not I, not mine.
The self and not-self conundrum. The "I am not" presupposes an "I" that is not!
Conceiving is a disease, a dart, and a cancer. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of conceiving.’ -SN 35.248
The Root of All Things- MN1

The Ordinary Person

“He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in all, he conceives himself apart from all, he conceives all to be ‘mine,’ he delights in all. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

The Arahant
“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of greed, aversion, and delusion.

Do you think you’re the same person…
Whether you think you are the same person or you think you are not, is still a conceiving!
Excellent! The abandonment of personality-view without residue is our goal, the goal set by the Buddha. As you so rightly point out, personality-view rests on conceivings, the ending of which brings liberation through final knowledge. My point about Gombrich is that his attempt to clarify what the Buddha taught about no-self merely muddies it. I have found in reading the Pali Canon that the best interpreter of the Buddha's thought is in fact the Buddha. I have found no commentator yet, from the day the Buddha died to the era in which Gombrich lives, whose commentary improves upon the original.
User avatar
pops
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by pops »

MikeRalphKing wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:24 am I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, but I found his 'What the Buddha Thought' to be full of errors based on what strikes me as an unsystematic reading of the Pali Canon. I would be most interested to hear what anyone might think of the essay I wrote detailing what I think are his mistakes. https://www.stochasticpress.com/papers/ ... itique.pdf
After reading the first few lines i wanted to say: In my opinion you shouldnt use the term 'enlightenment' - its misleading.
User avatar
MikeRalphKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by MikeRalphKing »

pops wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:10 am
MikeRalphKing wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:24 am I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, but I found his 'What the Buddha Thought' to be full of errors based on what strikes me as an unsystematic reading of the Pali Canon. I would be most interested to hear what anyone might think of the essay I wrote detailing what I think are his mistakes. https://www.stochasticpress.com/papers/ ... itique.pdf
After reading the first few lines i wanted to say: In my opinion you shouldnt use the term 'enlightenment' - its misleading.
I tend to use 'enlightened', 'enlightenment' and so on because the translators of the Pali Canon (Maurice Walshe, Bikkhu Bodhi and Bikku Namamoli) use it. As I say in my essay, some people prefer other terms such as 'awakening' or 'liberation'. Could you say why you think 'enlightenment' is misleading?
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by Pulsar »

MikeRalphKing wrote
I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich,
But Dear MikeRalphKing, you sound very disrespectful towards the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, even though you wish not to be so You continued:
but I found his 'What the Buddha Thought' to be full of errors based on what strikes me as an unsystematic reading of the Pali Canon.
Please enlighten us as to how to read the Pali canon systematically.
Recently a friend of the forum complained "Why is the Pali canon unsystematic?" or something to that effect. viewtopic.php?p=739861#p739861
It will be far more helpful if you created a new post, Titled "How to read the Pali canon systematically" instead of bashing Richard Gombrich for the effort he made.
Perhaps his publication helped other folks who understood certain valid points he emphasized, esp when it comes to "How Suffering originates".
VBB has said "Only fragments of Buddha's words are found in the the Pali canon".
If your analytical skills are superior to that of Richard Gombrich, can you help us figure out
those "Fragments". Arahants of Buddha's day only needed to hear a few fragments of Buddha's words to be relieved of suffering.
Pali canon is a sectarian document, where some of the presentations are sectarian, not necessarily Buddha's.
For instance Arupa samapatthis that prevailed before the Buddha, body part meditations likewise.
Good Luck! :candle:
User avatar
MikeRalphKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am

Re: What the Buddha Thought

Post by MikeRalphKing »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:19 am MikeRalphKing wrote
I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich,
But Dear MikeRalphKing, you sound very disrespectful towards the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, even though you wish not to be so You continued:
but I found his 'What the Buddha Thought' to be full of errors based on what strikes me as an unsystematic reading of the Pali Canon.
Please enlighten us as to how to read the Pali canon systematically.
Recently a friend of the forum complained "Why is the Pali canon unsystematic?" or something to that effect. viewtopic.php?p=739861#p739861
It will be far more helpful if you created a new post, Titled "How to read the Pali canon systematically" instead of bashing Richard Gombrich for the effort he made.
Perhaps his publication helped other folks who understood certain valid points he emphasized, esp when it comes to "How Suffering originates".
VBB has said "Only fragments of Buddha's words are found in the the Pali canon".
If your analytical skills are superior to that of Richard Gombrich, can you help us figure out
those "Fragments". Arahants of Buddha's day only needed to hear a few fragments of Buddha's words to be relieved of suffering.
Pali canon is a sectarian document, where some of the presentations are sectarian, not necessarily Buddha's.
For instance Arupa samapatthis that prevailed before the Buddha, body part meditations likewise.
Good Luck! :candle:

Hi Pulsar, if you read my article you will see that there is no intended disrespect, and indeed I apologise to Gombrich at the end if my tone appears ad hominem. However, if one sees what one thinks are errors of scholarship by a scholar it is in the spirit of scholarship to point them out and then see if the criticism stands or fails. I have sent the essay to Gombrich for his comment.

Your question on how to read the Pali Canon systematically is a good one, and one I have only after 25 years begun to have an answer to. Here are my suggestions (which underpin my own scholarship): (1) While maintaining respect for the compilers of the Canon, it is clear that some parts are more reliably the words of the Buddha and others less so. (2) The scholars, including Gombrich, seem to agree that the four major Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka (long, medium, connected and numerical) are the most reliable. I would also include the Sutta Nipata and the Udana. At the other end of the spectrum lies the Jataka Tales and the Buddhavamsa, both having some common material with the 'reliable' (as I define it) part of the Canon, but mostly consisting of myth. The Vinaya, I would say, is at an intermediate level of reliability, and not as reliable as the four major Nikayas. I think this is because Upali is much more of a story-teller than Ananda.

(3) Hence, to have any clear picture of what the Buddha thinks one needs to read the four major Nikayas, and preferably back them up with the Sutta Nipata and the Udana. Before making any firm conclusions on any topic of the Buddha's discourses one needs to read the 4 or preferably 6 volumes in their entirety, which Gombrich clearly has not done. I show why in each case of what I think are his errors, in my essay.

If you think I have made errors of my own in criticising Gombrich, please do cite suttas that show that. If you think my approach to reading the Canon is mistaken, do tell my why. I'm happy to learn all the time and change my views. (I still have the last third of the Anguttara Nikaya to read!)
Post Reply