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.
Whose Buddhism is Truest?
"No one’s—and everyone’s, it turns out.
Long-lost scrolls shed some surprising light.
by
Linda Heuman"
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest
Long-lost scrolls shed some surprising light.
by
Linda Heuman"
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest
0
Comments
AN VI.96
A practice of study, reflection, meditation and service to others are ideal tools to hone both our ethical sense and our discernment. This, I believe, is at the heart of right and skillful choices.
This would, I think, put to rest notions like "There was no Second Turning of the Wheel", because there very well could have been, although it's something we will never know.
First, this is an extremely well written article, which I enjoyed very much. BuckyG, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
This article reaffirmed my belief that the Dhamma, as we know it (and apparently despite our prejudices of belief) is unlikely to be the exact words spoken by Buddha. And that unrealistic (in my view) belief is something I have seen argued any number of times in any number of sources, including the various Buddhist internet forums. (In the article: "Texts had close parallels to one, two, and sometimes all three of the other language versions...But even more significant is what we have found: that is, difference. These scrolls are incontrovertible proof that as early as the first century B.C.E., there was another significant living Buddhist tradition in a separate region of India and in an entirely different language from the tradition preserved in Pali...'And where there are two, we are now on very solid ground in suggesting there were many more than two,' says...a professor of Sanskrit and Buddhist studies at the University of Washington...Cox suggests that “rather than asking the question what single language did the Buddha use and what represents the earliest version of his teachings, we might have to accept that from the very beginning there were various accounts of his teachings, different sutras, and different versions of sutras transmitted in different areas. At the very beginning we might have a number of different sources, all of whom represent or claim to represent the teaching of the Buddha.”
And this, if it is correct, goes back to another premise of mine. That it doesn't matter if the words are the exact words of Buddha. But rather, are the words wise? Are their teachings meaningful? We should accept wisdom where we find it. And, I am rather confident that the principles outlined in Buddhist sources at the very least conveys the general teachings of Buddha, even if the words are not the exact words he spoke.
And, while not specifically discussed in the article, it also strengthens my belief that each of us is most likely to support whichever Buddhist school we first become familiar with. There are exceptions, of course...people who intensely study each, or at least several of the schools. But for the most part, if someone is like me and experienced Thai-Theravada Buddhism, they will probably most identify with that school of thought...while hopefully being open to things from other schools.
This article also reminds me of another principle I have long argued for -- that we hold Buddhism to the same standards that we hold other religions to. Few of us believe that the Bible is the exact word of God or that the words of the New Testament are the exact words of Jesus. Let's be fair and be as realistic about our Buddhist beliefs. I guess it's a case of the intent (or in this case, the gist)of the words being most important. After all, most of us read the Dhamma and related information in English...so we don't have the exact words anyway.
otherwise I would not choose or practise it.
All the siblings in my family are authentic members of my family. Because our identity doesn’t depend on our possessing some unchanging “common thing,” we don’t have to argue over who has more of it. If we understand identity in this way, all Buddhists are 100 percent Buddhist.
Letting go of our old assumptions about history and language shouldn’t make us uneasy. The views we’re challenging as we assimilate these new archaeological discoveries were never Buddhist to begin with. We’re not abandoning the basis for our faith; we’re confirming it. And in so doing, we open up the possibility to truly appreciate different Buddhist traditions as equal members of our Buddhist family."
Having lived through the trauma of discovering that the Bible is a collection of context-dependent stories, legends and myths, many of which pre-existed our earliest documents, pre-existed the appearance of the Israelites themselves, and that Jesus' message itself may be based on earlier 'Essene' teachings, I find this refreshing. Few things are less enlightening than the old quarrels between Buddhist schools and traditions. It is good to see that modern scholarship, linked to good science, confirms what many of us have suspected: the 'differences' are cosmetic, not quintesseantial.
If we are searching for authenticity, we shall not find it in yearning for a fictitious source document but in the application of teachings to our own lives and the challenges of each day we draw breath.
I do think that as we look to CHRISTianity, we have to be as open-minded, however. As a person who has a degree of faith in both Buddhist principles and CHRISTian principles, I simply look at the teachings of Christ and ask which aspects seem wise to me. I do the same with the teachings of Buddha. I simply look for the wisdom. In terms of Christianity, I don't get bogged down in the Old Testament...although I may enjoy the theatrics of Charlton Heston on film.
I agree that we are challenged to take a new view of Christian texts, including those which are deemed deutero-canonical. In addition, there is great value to be gained from the Tanakh in understanding the context within which pre-Christian, 'Essene' spirituality arose, out of which Jesus emerges to preach what Christians now call the Good News, the Gospel. This more open approach to the scriptures is now generally accepted by academic theologians but has yet to be generally taught from the pulpit.
That Buddhists and Christians both try to appeal to authentic historicity should not surprise us. Every human group has tended to create an historical narrative for themselves, much of which will be legendary and, often, borrowed from prior cultures or groups. Just because we no longer believe in the Arthurian legend as the 'matter of Britain' as historically accurate, there are treasures to be found in the cycle of stories. Similarly with legendary stories such as the Exodus, with its lessons on the 'desert experience' and exile. The legends of the Buddha's previous lives, childhood, etc. have the same teaching function: it is a modern bias that we demand that such stories be 'factual', whatever that may mean.
it is not based on what is true i have come to realize it is all base on your mind perceiving anything to be good is what is truest. what really matter what all those thing are trying to tell you is that you are the only one who can choose to see the truth past the words and ideas to see past that and see that your actions now are what really matter.
whats true for yesterday is true for today. the insight you had yesterday is true today.
the peace and stillness you found yesterday is here right now as well.
the different traditions are like different articles of clothing you wear. true buddhism is running around naked. get the metaphor?
real buddhism is defined as: "all things arise from a cause and the enlightened one declares the cause"
can i read and become a buddha?
the cause is attachment bro right? if i don't attach am i buddha?
or if the cause is ignorance. can i just read up on what the buddha said. ill be buddha then right bro?
for example, why do you recommend to "run around naked"? because it is the cause of what you regard as liberation
i am not saying Buddhism does not recommend abiding with/in "present" experience
i am just saying this is a "cause" for something
often the mind is too absorbed in the taste of the fruit that the mind does not see the fruit
we are both saying the say thing, but my definition is broader
like the cause of a good family relationship. Buddhism also describes this
sure, "me" & "you" brother are no so attached to family but all things have their causes
if a mind cannot see the "cause" of its liberation that how can it be "seeing"?
regards
i am glad we finally agree with something even if there is slight disagreement on your part.
i agree with everything you say bro.
much love.
just using different languages
much love, also
It seems you've reached an accord, but if you haven't then PM each other for any further responses.
This finding might be proof that the Buddha taught the same insight through different means arising dependent upon his audience. He might in fact have learned different languages along the way as well, just as a modern scholar does, as there are similarities between the different languages of ancient India of the Buddhas' time.
He just might have taught the Mahayana to different students just as the Sutras claim and only Hinayana to other students simply dependent upon individual capacity and their individual needs at the time?
Just as is claimed by Mahayana Sutras for Mahakasyapa?
The key I think to all Buddhist traditions is indeed dependent origination instead of the monist or mono-theistic ideal of independent origination? One leads to an ultimate, self existing source of all things and the other does not. It does seem that all Buddhist traditions that have ancient Indian roots including, Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen are about the latter rather than the former? That there is no inherent essence, just endless regress, or endless progress in cycle after cycle.
I had previously missed this little nudge in between my two posts. LOL!
(Sorry... up late. Drank an energy drink. Listening to techno music. Hehe.)
thus this truth is a conditional truth. duality.
truth has to be beyond being truth and false. so in a way truth isn't even the word "truth".
so truth has to be unconditional meaning it has to be always true.
thus if truth is unconditional there are no hierarchies to truth because this truth is neither true or false.
so truth has to move in paradoxes or silence. meaning it has to be an all encompassing view, thus essentially a no view.
thus it can be the silence or it can be the noise. it can be a relative truth as well. a paradox is only a paradox if we only see one part of that truth. if we believe truth is all views then the paradox no longer exists.
meh thinking too much. but i know there are thinkers on here so have fun with my ramblings.
amen people amen.
Dighanaka Sutta