I've not watched it all so far, but this lecture by Richard Gombrich is quite enjoyable
What the Buddha Thought
What the Buddha Thought
“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.”
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.”
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:21 pm
Re: What the Buddha Thought
Long but great video. Richard Francis is truly an intelligent person.
dream about getting shot and not dying + positive affirmations
dream about getting shot and not dying + positive affirmations
Re: What the Buddha Thought
The Buddha taught that everything in the world is impermanent and subject to change. Understanding and accepting this truth helps to alleviate suffering.
Re: What the Buddha Thought
I read before Gombrich said the Buddha taught how not to rebirth.
- MikeRalphKing
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am
Re: What the Buddha Thought
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
Re: What the Buddha Thought
I had a skim and it looks like a great essay refuting the tedious assertions of Gombrich.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What the Buddha Thought
The point is you changeMikeRalphKing 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’.
You are not the same person you were
- MikeRalphKing
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am
Re: What the Buddha Thought
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!cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:12 pmThe point is you changeMikeRalphKing 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’.
You are not the same person you were
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What the Buddha Thought
Do you think you’re the same person…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".
As you were in high school?
Re: What the Buddha Thought
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!
"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.
Whether you think you are the same person or you think you are not, is still a conceiving!Do you think you’re the same person…
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
- MikeRalphKing
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am
Re: What the Buddha Thought
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.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 35.248The 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.
Whether you think you are the same person or you think you are not, is still a conceiving!Do you think you’re the same person…
Re: What the Buddha Thought
After reading the first few lines i wanted to say: In my opinion you shouldnt use the term 'enlightenment' - its misleading.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
- MikeRalphKing
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am
Re: What the Buddha Thought
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?pops wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:10 amAfter reading the first few lines i wanted to say: In my opinion you shouldnt use the term 'enlightenment' - its misleading.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
Re: What the Buddha Thought
MikeRalphKing wrote
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!
But Dear MikeRalphKing, you sound very disrespectful towards the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, even though you wish not to be so You continued:I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich,
Please enlighten us as to how to read the Pali canon systematically.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.
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!
- MikeRalphKing
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:47 am
Re: What the Buddha Thought
Pulsar wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:19 am MikeRalphKing wroteBut Dear MikeRalphKing, you sound very disrespectful towards the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich, even though you wish not to be so You continued:I don't wish to appear disrespectful to the great Oxford scholar Richard Gombrich,Please enlighten us as to how to read the Pali canon systematically.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.
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!
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!)