Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
All things necessary...
To a fundamentalist Christian, all things necessary to salvation are contained in the Bible.
To a fundamentalist Buddhist, all things necessary to enlightenment are contained in the Pali Canon.
Of course the Buddha was enlightened, but he made a point of saying he was human.
Would the Buddha have allowed for the evolution of "Buddhism" beyond what he said, to include, for example, the Heart Sutra, the Mahayana, the Vajrayana, and so forth? He admits he was human. Would he have allowed for "the second (and third and fourth) turnings of the wheel as valid expansions of his teachings?
(I must apologize in advance for having a poor internet signal so I'm not sure when I can come back or how much I can contribute.)
To a fundamentalist Buddhist, all things necessary to enlightenment are contained in the Pali Canon.
Of course the Buddha was enlightened, but he made a point of saying he was human.
Would the Buddha have allowed for the evolution of "Buddhism" beyond what he said, to include, for example, the Heart Sutra, the Mahayana, the Vajrayana, and so forth? He admits he was human. Would he have allowed for "the second (and third and fourth) turnings of the wheel as valid expansions of his teachings?
(I must apologize in advance for having a poor internet signal so I'm not sure when I can come back or how much I can contribute.)
0
Comments
The Donna Sutta shows the Buddha saying that he is not identified with being a human or god. He is simply awakened from samsara which includes all the planes of existence and it's inhabitants:
He approached the Blessed One and said, “ Master, are you a god (deva) ?”
"No, brahmin, I am not a god.”
"Are you a heavenly musician (gandhabba) ?”
"No..."
"... a yakkha ( tree spirits of varying degrees of ethical purity. They are analogous to the goblins, trolls, ogres, and fairies of Western fairy tales )?”
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
With metta,
P.S. in another sutta the Buddha stated that Maitreya will be the next one to set the wheel rolling. Right now the disciples are supposed to keep the wheel rolling instead of rolling their own wheel.
Maybe it's a better question to ask: did he intend for his words to be written in stone, or to be elaborated upon, and for the spirit of his talks, rather than the letter of his talks, to be developed in later texts. (Also extremely speculative.)
Suffering and cessation of suffering. The rest of it, just social coping mechanics until people are ready to abandon identification with them.
The explanation given in the footnote in accesstoinsight explains that it is more like "What might this be?" "What on earth is this?", rather than in the context of the future tense:
"Dona phrases his question in the future tense, which has led to a great deal of discussion as to what this entire dialogue means: Is he asking what the Buddha will be in a future life, or is he asking what he is right now? The context of the discussion seems to demand the second alternative — Dona wants to know what kind of being would have such amazing footprints, and the Buddha's image of the lotus describes his present state — but the grammar of Dona's questions would seem to demand the first. However, A. K. Warder, in his Introduction to Pali (p. 55), notes that the future tense is often used to express perplexity, surprise, or wonder about something in the present: "What might this be?" "What on earth is this?" This seems to be the sense of Dona's questions here. His earlier statement — "These are not the footprints of a human being" — is also phrased in the future tense, and the mood of wonder extends throughout his conversation with the Buddha.
It's also possible that the Buddha's answers to Dona's questions — which, like the questions, are put in the future tense — are a form of word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings, to refer both to his present and to his future state.
The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water."
In Buddhist cosmology, it is not unusual for a person to take birth in one realm in one life and another realm in another life depending on one's kamma ( the cause and effect of your word, thought, and action). A person can be a human in the present life and be a deva , animal, or brahma in a previous life or the next. Yet none of these identities can be considered your permanent or true identity. Just like in one dream you are a man, in another you are an elephant, yet an angel in another. Once you awaken, you do not take any of these roles in your dream to be yourself. Therefore, the Buddha doesn’t identify with any of the roles as a deva in his past lives as his true self. For example, the Buddha mentioned that :
" Whenever the world was destroyed, I entered ( by way of rebirth) among the devas of Streaming Radiance, and when the world unfolded again, I was born in an empty Brahma-palace. There, I was Mahabrahma, the unvanquished victor , holding authority for seven times. And thirty-six times I was Sakka, king of the devas, and many hundred times I was a universal monarch, a just and righteous king." - Metta Sutta ( AN 7.59)
After Awakening, none of these roles can be considered as permanent or true identity.
----------
The above topic about whether the Buddha is human or not and the topic of whether someone should teach something that wasn't in his teaching in the first place ( rolling their own wheels) are two different topics. I just didn't feel like elaborating on the second topic after discussing the first topic so I just put one sentence, but we can go into detail if necessary. However, that topic would take up a book. It is not that different from the Mahayana vs. Theraveda debate.
With metta,
haha! "rolling their own wheels"--that's great! That pretty much tells us where you stand on the question! ^_^
Regarding the first topic, the Buddha described himself as a "Teacher of Human and Deva "( Sattha devamanussanam) because both human and gods are still stuck in the 31 planes of samsara and haven't awaken from it.
Those who have worked on the issues raised by the variant versions of Dhp have, by and large, directed the discussion to figuring out which version is the oldest and most authentic, and which versions are later and more corrupt. Lacking any outside landmarks against which the versions can be sighted, scholars have attempted to reconstruct what must have been the earliest version by triangulating among the texts themselves. This textual trigonometry tends to rely on assumptions from among the following three types:
1) Assumptions concerning what is inherently an earlier or later form of a verse....
2) Assumptions concerning the meter of the verses in question....
3) Assumptions concerning the language in which the original Dhp was first composed....
These assumptions are totally inappropriate for analyzing the oral culture in which the Buddha taught and in which the verses of the Dhp were first anthologized. If we look carefully at the nature of that culture — and in particular at clear statements from the early Buddhist texts concerning the events and principles that shaped those texts — we will see that it is perfectly natural that there should be a variety of reports about the Buddha's teachings, all of which might be essentially correct. In terms of the Dhp, we can view the multiple versions of the text as a sign, not of faulty transmission, but of an allegiance to their oral origins."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.intro.than.html#intro
Then we get into the old Buddhist camps of the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Hinayana. We're considered Hinayana or 'lesser vehicle.' So we could think that means it's probably not as good. Mahayana is better, says logic. Lesser vehicle and greater vehicle. Then Vajrayana, that's the absolute best. You can't get any better than Vajrayana according to the Tibetans. That's the highest vehicle. So then we start thinking in terms of good, better, best. But all of these are conventions. Whether we call it Mahayana, Hinayana or Vajrayana, they're still just conventions: they're limited; they're imperfect. They're functional, to be used for mindfulness rather than as some kind of attachment or position that one takes on anything.... These different terms can be very divisive. It we attach...and start looking down on every other form of Buddhism then we think that they're not pure, they're not original! They're higher, but they're not original. We can get arrogant because we've got our own way of justifying our convention. BUT THIS IS ALL JUST PLAYING WITH WORDS. If we look at what is going on in words, we're just creating Mahayana, Hinayana, and Vajarayana in our minds. The reguge is in Buddha, not in these 'yanas' (p. 123, my emphasis).
Somebody might say, 'Maybe there was never any Buddha; maybe it was just a myth.' But it doesn't matter, because we don't need to prove that Gotoma Buddha actually lived; that's not the issue, is it? We are not trying to prove historical facts, but to recognize that what we are actually experiencing now is like THIS (Intuitive Awareness, p. 140).
Lesser Vehicle,
No matter!
In the end,
All Vehicles
Will be towed away
At owner’s expense
To a fundamentalist Buddhist, all things necessary to enlightenment are contained in the Pali Canon.
_____________________________
Does the word "fundamentalist" in this context mean someone who adheres solely to scripture? I have always thought of Buddhism as something that was alive. What is alive may be informed by what is not alive (eg. pages in a book), but can hardly be limited to or adequately defined by it.
I guess I just don't get what fundamentalism is being referred to here.
The Buddha discovered Dharma, that which can be told and taught in an evening. That which is true of all things, from the big bang to my experience of dinner.
Like all of the teachings of the ancients, his teachings have been augmented over time (Do we really think any one man could know, remember or convey the Ahibdharma?).
Dharma is always there and easy to find, possible to practice and clearly very hard to master fully. Buddhism may die out, dharma is the eternal light.
xx
It can take many shapes and have various colors.
People can argue all their lives about the real raft or the only raft or the bigger raft or the fastest raft.
All that matters however is to get across the river.
My impression is that the Buddha was a practical guy.
And of course the Buddha was human.
What else.
For the lay, many are concern with applying the teaching to enrich their daily life in this life, so what happens after they die is not that important. Whether they are aware about cosmology or not , if they apply the practice of dharma then it naturally serves as a cause for pleasant next life if there is one. Although there are information about the various planes of rebirth, but the important part of the practice is to take care of the present moment and allow the rest to unfold on its own.
The Maha-Saccaka Sutta indicates that this direct knowledge came during the Buddha's night of enlightenment after purifying the mind with meditation:
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. "(Maha-Saccaka Sutta)
The Buddha taught a Noble Eightfold Path that leads people to awakening within. Arahant disciples of the Buddha become very much like the Buddha himself in many ways. The SN 16.9 Jhanabhinna sutta gave an example.
The Buddha served as an example of the potential in each being, just like a butterfly is an example of the potential within each caterpillar.
With metta,
For people that find the teaching on Cosmology hard to believe, they can still practice living in the present, meditation , doing good and still experience the benefit for themselves just the same. The belief in the teachings on cosmology is not necessary.
Yes, this is also related to the practice of doing good and abandon unwholesome things. Take the Apannaka Sutta for example:
The belief that there are no results for good and bad actions, there is no this world, no other world:
"Householders, those recluses and brahmins who have this view and declare there are no results for gifts, offerings, or sacrifices. There are no results for good and bad actions, there is no this world, no other world….."
" We could expect this, they would abstain from these three things of merit such as good conduct by body, speech and mind, would observe these three things of demerit such as misconduct by body, speech and mind. What is the reason? These good recluses and brahmins do not see the dangers of demerit, the vile nature of defilements, the purity and the results of merit in giving up. "
"There’s another world. So their view there is no other world, becomes wrong view. Words that say, there is no other world, becomes wrong speech. The view, there is no other world, is completely opposite to what the noble ones say. The noble ones talk of another world. Their instructions, there is no other world, becomes wrong instructions, and the wrong teaching. Giving the wrong instructions, they praise themselves and disparage others. .By that they decrease in their virtues and accumulate various things of demerit, on account of wrong view. Such as wrong thoughts, wrong speech, giving instructions in the wrong teaching quite opposite to the noble one’s teaching, and praising themselves and disparaging others.
"A wise man reflects, if there is no other world, these good persons will be well and good after death. If there is another world, after death they would go to decrease, to hell.
"Let us say there is no, other world, and the words of these good recluses and brahmins are true. Yet they are blamed by the wise, here and now, as un -virtuous ones bearing wrong view, and negative ideas.
"If there is the other world, these good persons will have unlucky throws on both sides. The wise will blame them here and now, they will decrease in virtues and birth in hell after death. Thus if this pervading teaching is observed, it pervades both sides and neglects the side of demerit."
With metta,
__________________________
CW -- Does this refer to my question about what "fundamentalist" Buddhism might be? And, as an associative question, my (admittedly very poor) understanding is that many/most/all of the scriptures were written 100-200-300+ years after Gautama's death. If true, does this mean that what is presumed to be "authentic" was written and collated more than a century after-the-authentic-fact?
I'm not trying to fault such a faith. It doesn't matter to me if something was said 15 minutes ago or 15 centuries ago as long as the wisdom of the observations proves to be true in experienced fact. Authenticity strikes me as being that which can be and is in fact verified by the person asserting that authenticity.
Actually, I'm more interested in understanding the "fundamentalist" matter. I take it that it means a willingness to credit early scripture ... is that correct?
Thanks for the help.
________________________________
OK, CW. I sort of get it. Thanks.
Is it possible to provide other justification for altering the teaching rather than labeling or name calling those who choose to follow instruction properly as " fundamentalist" . Before passing away , the Buddha instructed his disciples to name the background information of the discourse he gave when repeating it to others. He also told the listener to carefully analyze the discourses to trace back the details making sure that it was actually his teachings before following. If " they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable" then " bhikkhus, you should reject it.":
"In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."- Mahaparinibbana Sutta
Also , knowing that his teachings will be prone to alteration, he gave the instruction to disciples to follow the Dhamma and Vinaya he established instead of individuals:
" Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge." - Mahaparinibbana Sutta
With Metta,
- Maha-parinibbana Sutta
I believe these meditations are described in Words of My Perfect Teacher. The specific meditations I did are described in the karma chapter of Wake Up To Your Life, and in these retreat talks. The view of these realms as post-mortem destinations is the cosmology I'm referring to. It's the model of them as here-and-now projected world views which is most useful in day-to-day practice.
With Metta,
On the other hand, the Mahayana schools are here, they're not going to just go up in a puff of smoke. If people find them valuable and conducive to developing compassion, what's the harm?
___________________________
Wasn't this a time when oral tradition was more frequently used than a written one?
_________________________
Might as well practice and find out for ourselves, perhaps?