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.
A year ago I was told I'm a "fundamentalist" Buddhist. The problem with this, I think, is that I'm experimental, and also willing to consider Hinduism or Christianity for anything useful.
My reasoning, that caused others to consider me fundamentalist, is this:
* I'm interested in doing something I do not know how to do: to cultivate Clear Mind.
* Since I do not know how to do it, I should consult with people who do.
* According to Wikipedia, the Pali canon probably teaches what is closest to what the Buddha originally taught. That doesn't mean it's perfect, it's just likely that it's closest to the source.
* Therefore, I should take direction from the Pali literature.
* Similarly, if I wanted to learn to drive, I would consult with people who knew how to drive, and if I wanted to learn to knit I would consult with people who knew how to knit.
* If I had a disagreement with someone who knew how to drive, when I did not know how to drive, the most likely cause is that I do not understand. What I would then do is hassle them until I did.
* On the other hand, if I have a disagreement with someone who does not know how to knit themselves, one possible cause is that they do not understand. What I would do then is hassle them until I have a better, clearer, more useful understanding. Also they might benefit from this in their own way.
--The reliance on authority, which I only consider sensible, was considered "fundamentalism."
However, the result of this are not standard Buddhist beliefs: I do not imagine that there are any Buddhists who would agree with, or even follow, what I think is true.
A big part of my inner life is as a Christian. --Yet, many Christians also would not recognize me as a "true" Christian, because my beliefs in Christianity are also highly idiosyncratic.
@nigelart Who are these people you claim are "proudly" proclaiming they've never read a single one of the Buddha's sermons? I've never run into anyone like that, and I'd guess that no one else on this thread has, either, other than you. So it may be safe to say that we don't know what you're talking about.
But in the tradition I've studied in, the Buddha's teachings are presented in the tradition's own texts. In my observation, no one feels a need to read the original sermons. They have faith that the texts their teacher provides are based on the Buddha's teachings. It never occurred to me, for example, to study the Pali Canon to check up on my teacher's lineage to see if the 1000-year lineage was lying or misguided.
You are in direct violation of the Buddha's teaching if you're behaving like that. Here is what the Buddha said:
“Suppose a monk were to say: ‘Friends, I heard and received this from the Lord’s own lips: this is the Dharma, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teaching’, then, monks, you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Sutras and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be: ‘Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk’, and the matter is to be rejected.”
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: The Great Passing (The Buddha’s Last Days) - 4.8
You ought to go back and reexamine your teacher's words in the light of the above admonition of the original founder of Buddhism. Don't take anything uncritically at the face value -- this is the hallmark of a true Buddhist practice.
Don't be disingenuous. You lecture us on the meaning of a part of the Diamond Sutra, than you say you never claimed to understand it. I guess that means we can disregard your earlier attempt at interpreting something you admit you make no claim to understanding. Thanks for the clarification.
All I did is supply a quote from the sutra, without claiming I understand it. To me, the quote states that the Buddha never taught Dharma. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong in that understanding.
I see I need to offer further clarification: teachings found in the Nikayas and Agamas are not Theravada teachings, nor are they Hinayana teachings. Both Theravada and Hinayana are later inventions. Nikayas and Agamas contain the teaching that is otherwise known as primitive, or early Buddhism. This is the pre-sectarian Buddhism, because it is coming from a singular source -- the historical Buddha himself.
If it walks like a duck...
In any case, I appreciate the opportunity to post that .... uh rant, I guess. It is worth the read, because there is a difference in attitude online that gives a poor impression to new people..
There is a weird phenomena that I do not understand. Of all the different streams of Buddhism, uniquely (in my experience) there are two distinct Theravadin Buddhisms, an off-line one, and an on-line one.
It has been my experience that people come across very differently through a text medium than they do in person. Something about communicating in text.
@nigelart, the kalama sutra is in both theravada and mahayana I believe. You test the teachings. Buddha also said not to believe his own word just because he is Buddha.
Buddhism as a whole seems to tend to splinter into two major streams:
1. Empirical 2. Transcendental
How are these two streams different? Mostly, the differences lie in whether the followers of such streams believe in the historical authenticity of the Buddha or not. Empiricists do believe that the Buddha was a human being who indeed lived approximately 2,500 years ago in India and who taught the doctrine of Four Noble Truths and dependent arising, culminating in his teaching on the Middle Way.
Transcendentalists vehemently deny this. They claim that the Buddha is not, and cannot be human, and that he never uttered even a single word of teaching.
Furthermore, the two streams differ in how they view the community striving toward perfection (a.k.a. Sangha in Sanskrit). Empiricists hold that this community is real, and that it is the purity of this community that gives meaning to giving and receiving gifts (the teaching on generosity, or compassion). Transcendentalists again deny this, claiming that such community does not and cannot exist, and that it is only the Action of giving that is meaningful, and the emphasis is solely on the giver and the merits this giver accumulates, not on the receiver.
Put slightly differently, the focus of empiricists in Buddhism is on ethical and moral living, while the focus of transcendentalists is on duty.
Now I understand your question much better. This was a useful post.
I am an empirical transcendental Christian Buddhist.
@nigelart, apologies for being a little unreasonable or agressive or however it seems. Perhaps jumping down the throat? It's a long story but I found an anti-psychotic 3 months ago that has helped me but it made it too hard to stay awake a full day. So now I am trying to take ritalin which has done the trick on my sleep and vitality of emotion/motivation but when the peak of the ritalin runs down I am getting irritable and things seem more upsetting than usual.
So apologies. Apologies to anyone else this week such as @Iktomi.
@nigelart, apologies for being a little unreasonable or agressive or however it seems. Perhaps jumping down the throat? It's a long story but I found an anti-psychotic 3 months ago that has helped me but it made it too hard to stay awake a full day. So now I am trying to take ritalin which has done the trick on my sleep and vitality of emotion/motivation but when the peak of the ritalin runs down I am getting irritable and things seem more upsetting than usual.
So apologies. Apologies to anyone else this week such as @Iktomi.
Jeffrey, you've really impressed me in your previous post with your ability to raise above the personality obsession syndrome that seems to be plaguing so many social media outlets nowadays. You've shown (to me at least) remarkable degree of maturity by focusing on the supplied argumentation and dealing with pointed ways to either refute, corroborate, or do whatever else you feel like doing with the supplied arguments. But it was such a relief to see that you've gone beyond obsessing about my personality, how I comb my hair, how I come across with my choice of words and such. Again, thank you and congratulations!
Jeffrey, you've really impressed me in your previous post with your ability to raise above the personality obsession syndrome that seems to be plaguing so many social media outlets nowadays. You've shown (to me at least) remarkable degree of maturity by focusing on the supplied argumentation and dealing with pointed ways to either refute, corroborate, or do whatever else you feel like doing with the supplied arguments. But it was such a relief to see that you've gone beyond obsessing about my personality, how I comb my hair, how I come across with my choice of words and such. Again, thank you and congratulations!
Just realized how funny my post above is: here I am praising someone for being mature enough to raise above the personality obsession, but isn't my praise of Jeffrey's personality another form of personality obsession?
You are in direct violation of the Buddha's teaching if you're behaving like that. Here is what the Buddha said:
“Suppose a monk were to say: ‘Friends, I heard and received this from the Lord’s own lips: this is the Dharma, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teaching’, then, monks, you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Sutras and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be: ‘Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk’, and the matter is to be rejected.”
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: The Great Passing (The Buddha’s Last Days) - 4.8
You ought to go back and reexamine your teacher's words in the light of the above admonition of the original founder of Buddhism. Don't take anything uncritically at the face value -- this is the hallmark of a true Buddhist practice.
The thing is, Nigel old chum, those who are new to Buddhism haven't even heard of the Pali Canon. It's possible to go through years of teachings in the Mahayana traditions, and never even know the Pali sutras exist. And the Pali tradition isn't the only one that records the words of the Buddha. There are teachings of the Buddha in Gandhari that are foundational to Mahayana, yet predate the Pali texts. I've read some of those, have you, Nige, old bean?
Dear nigel, you are one brave lad for posing this question here. Be prepared for all hell to break loose. Comments like "I dont really care what the sutta says" is pretty common here. I am already sending you loads of metta.
I've met a lot of people who claimed to be Buddhists but who had never read even a single word of the Buddha's original teachings, as recorded in Nikayas and Agamas. I've always found that to be extremely odd, sort of like meeting a Christian who never read anything from the Bible, or a Muslim who never bothered reading Quran, or an orthodox Jew... you get the point.
So what kind of a Buddhist are you? The one who made the effort to familiarize him/herself with the Buddha's teaching from Nikayas/Agamas, or the one who couldn't be bothered?
There is scant evidence for what you claim here with such confidence. Most Buddhist scholars agree that the pali canon is the most reliable record of what the Buddha taught.
You are in direct violation of the Buddha's teaching if you're behaving like that. Here is what the Buddha said:
“Suppose a monk were to say: ‘Friends, I heard and received this from the Lord’s own lips: this is the Dharma, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teaching’, then, monks, you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Sutras and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be: ‘Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk’, and the matter is to be rejected.”
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: The Great Passing (The Buddha’s Last Days) - 4.8
You ought to go back and reexamine your teacher's words in the light of the above admonition of the original founder of Buddhism. Don't take anything uncritically at the face value -- this is the hallmark of a true Buddhist practice.
The thing is, Nigel old chum, those who are new to Buddhism haven't even heard of the Pali Canon. It's possible to go through years of teachings in the Mahayana traditions, and never even know the Pali sutras exist. And the Pali tradition isn't the only one that records the words of the Buddha. There are teachings of the Buddha in Gandhari that are foundational to Mahayana, yet predate the Pali texts. I've read some of those, have you, Nige, old bean?
Dear nigel, you are one brave lad for posing this question here. Be prepared for all hell to break loose. Comments like "I dont really care what the sutta says" is pretty common here. I am already sending you loads of metta.
I appreciate your hint, Jll. But I still find it funny that such a simple, basic thing could provoke all hell breaking lose. It's like me saying: "If you intend to write a best selling book, you ought to learn alphabet first."
Of course, there will always be people who would then exclaim: "I don't really care about the alphabet!", but such people are sad, don't you think?
There is scant evidence for what you claim here with such confidence. Most Buddhist scholars agree that the pali canon is the most reliable record of what the Buddha taught.
Further to this, science now holds that the most reliable source of the original Buddha's teaching is the overlap found between Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas. These two sources have evolved completely independently from each other, yet contain amazingly large body of almost identical teachings. This is rather unprecedented, and is a sure fire indicator that we're looking at authentic sayings of the historical Buddha, uncorrupted by various agenda of different streams and sects that have otherwise completely compromised the pristine teaching.
Can I ask where you guys were talking about the Diamond Sutra?
Your question doesn't seem to make much grammatical sense, or perhaps it's just me not being able to grok it. Please see if you could elaborate a bit? Thanks.
The thing is, Nigel old chum, those who are new to Buddhism haven't even heard of the Pali Canon. It's possible to go through years of teachings in the Mahayana traditions, and never even know the Pali sutras exist. And the Pali tradition isn't the only one that records the words of the Buddha. There are teachings of the Buddha in Gandhari that are foundational to Mahayana, yet predate the Pali texts. I've read some of those, have you, Nige, old bean?
This is like saying there are Christians who never heard of Jesus.
I've read the Gandhari version of Dhammapada, nothing earth shattering so far (compared to the Pali version of the same text).
And I object to being called 'old bean'. Instead, I would much appreciate it if you could call me 'new bean'.
This seems like a pretty blatant and partisan way to interpret the passage. This passage seems to be referring to an ultimate take on reality, much like the story of the Buddha twirling a flower and mahakashyapa smiling. To say it means the Buddha never taught the dharma, and vehemently deny it at that, is to me, silly.
So when the Buddha, according to this sutra, says: "giving a Dharma talk in fact means that no talk is given", he was actually saying that he gave a talk? What kind of a messed up incoherent babbling would that be? Why would the Buddha be that flippant? Ultimate take on reality? Does that mean we can be blabbing about anything incoherently, and others will be awe-struck in our glowing presence, basking in our ultimate take on reality?
Hey, if everything else fails, we can always twirl a flower, no?
Then to claim that they deny the sangha. There is a very rich tradition in TB and Zen of a sangha, so that seems like a strange claim divorced from reality.
There are many sects in Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. They tend to differ profoundly in what aspects of the doctrine they focus on. To bundle them all up under Zen and TB would be naive.
And I've never claimed that TB and Zen don't propagate the sangha. All I said was the transcendentalist streams within the Buddhist tradition denies the sangha.
There is scant evidence for what you claim here with such confidence. Most Buddhist scholars agree that the pali canon is the most reliable record of what the Buddha taught.
There are teachings of the Buddha in Gandhari that are foundational to Mahayana, yet predate the Pali texts.
There is "scant" evidence because the Gandhari texts are a new find. As for voting which is more reliable, could you give us a link? It's probably premature to say which, if either of them, is more reliable.
@nigelart I'd never heard of the Pali sutras until I joined this forum. I've never known anyone in the Tibetan tradition to mention them. This is reality. Welcome to reality.
This is not like saying there are Christians who've never heard of Jesus. All Buddhists have heard of the Buddha. How many Christians have heard of the Nag Hammadi library? The fact is that Buddhists of the different traditions have studied the texts of their tradition. That's how it works. That's perfectly normal. Chill.
There is scant evidence for what you claim here with such confidence. Most Buddhist scholars agree that the pali canon is the most reliable record of what the Buddha taught.
There was an article in tricycle in which some ancient scrolls were found. The conclusions drawn from that was that buddhism did not evolve in branches but rather in a tangled bush. Which is to say that the mahayana view was older than previously believed. The Ghandari scrolls.
I would suspect that not everyone agreed even in buddhas sangha. Have you ever been anywhere in your life where everyone agreed?
"Nobody holds the view of an original canon anymore," Oskar von HIbuber, one of the world's leading scholars of Pali, told me.
Consider why scholars think this. First of all, there are certain practical difficulties of oral transmission in a time before digital recording. How could 500 monks have agreed on 45 years of Buddha's words?
Von Hinuber also points out that the sutras themselves record a deep and persistent quarrel between the Buddha's attendent, Ananda, and Mahakasyapa, who presided over the Council and was the principle disciple at the time of Buddha's death. He suggests that it would be Pollyannaish to imagine that the Council (if it even occured) was politic-free and harmonious.
"There are many indications that [the stories of the First Council] are not correct in the way of a historical report. But they tell us something interesting and important," says von HInuber. "Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact that at some point in history their texxts must have been shaped by somebody into the standard form they now have, beginning Thus I have heard. Who this was, we don't know."
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachigns, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.
"This is a very important story," says von Hinuber, "because it shows that Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact of diverging traditions."
Religious orthodoxy wants to claim that one's own tradition is the best. To do that, one needs to point to something unique to make it so. Having the sole true version of a singular truth is just such a foothold.
..................................
These first-century Mahayana texts in the new collections are already highly developed in terms of narrative complexity and Mahayana doctrine. The couldn't be the first mahayana sutras, Harrison says. "The earlier stages of the Mahayana go far back. The Mahayana has longer and older roots than we thought before."
................................
During this period of early Buddhism there wer many different strands of practice and trends of thought that were not yet linked. "We could have the Perfection of Wisdom strand and a Pure Land strand and a worship of the Buddha strand, and all sorts of things going on," Harrison remarks.
Harrison suggested we consider a braided river as a better metaphor than a tree for the historical development of Buddhist traditions. A braided river has a number of strands that fan out and reunite. "Its origin is not one spring, but a marsh or a network of small feeder stream," he told me. According to this model, the Mahayana and Vajrayana "are merely downstream in the onward flow of creativity. They are activities similar in nature to early Buddhism -- not radically different. And a lot of current in their channels has come all the way from the headwaters," he says. "Whether it all has the single taste of liberation is another question."
In such a picture of textural transmission - fluid, dynamic, and intermingled--where and how could one stake territorial claim? Sectarian posturing is based on having the actual words of the Buddha--complete, stable, unmediated, and self-contained. Once all one can have is a complex of versions of the Buddha's words -- partial, changing, shaped, and commingled with other versions -- in what sense would it be authoritative if one's own version was bottled upstream or down?
But I still wanted to drink my water bottled upstream even though I knew that kind of thinking no longer made sense. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me. Finally, I looked inside my glass. What did I assume was in it? What do we imagine we have when we have the Buddha's words?
We think that if we have the Buddha's actual words we have his true intent. The whole ediifice of sectarain claims based on history remained teetering on this.
Somehow we picture the Buddha's true, single, unambiguous meaning encapsulated in his words like jewels inside a box, passed from one generation to the next like a Grandmother's heirlooms. But that's not the way meanings or words work. Consider the following from well-known scholar of religion Robert Bellah:
The split in the sangha occured during Buddha's lifetime. Why do the mahayana schools acknowledge and accept the pali suttas? The only difference is, in addition to the pali suttas, the mahayanas have found it necessary to add other sutras which has dubious origin.
I've met a lot of people who claimed to be Buddhists but who had never read even a single word of the Buddha's original teachings, as recorded in Nikayas and Agamas.
There's no reason why Buddhists have to read the Pali Cannon, but personally I find it strange if there are Buddhists who don't want to. For me the suttas describe the content of the Buddhas teaching, while the sutras represent a poetic description of his experience, so both are useful and important in understanding the Dharma.
Have you ever read a document that wasn't influenced by a person's views or agendas?
Point taken, but if we don't make the effort to read the source material, then we're dependent on second hand opinions about the source material, which is even more subjective and unreliable.
Your question doesn't seem to make much grammatical sense, or perhaps it's just me not being able to grok it. Please see if you could elaborate a bit? Thanks.
I had understood from reading this thread that you, Nigelart, and Compassionate, had a prior debate about the Diamond Sutra, which I would be interested in reading. I may have misunderstood. But if there's a thread where you had a debate or discussion about the Diamond Sutra, I'd be interested in reading it.
This seems like a pretty blatant and partisan way to interpret the passage. This passage seems to be referring to an ultimate take on reality, much like the story of the Buddha twirling a flower and mahakashyapa smiling. To say it means the Buddha never taught the dharma, and vehemently deny it at that, is to me, silly.
So when the Buddha, according to this sutra, says: "giving a Dharma talk in fact means that no talk is given", he was actually saying that he gave a talk? What kind of a messed up incoherent babbling would that be? Why would the Buddha be that flippant? Ultimate take on reality? Does that mean we can be blabbing about anything incoherently, and others will be awe-struck in our glowing presence, basking in our ultimate take on reality?
As I understand it, from an enlightened perspective there is no dharma. That doesn't mean that the wrong idea that there is dharma can't be very useful to those of us who are not enlightened.
Mathematicians are interested in truth, but when it was impossible to take the square root of negative one, they invented an answer. Because it was useful.
I had understood from reading this thread that you, Nigelart, and Compassionate, had a prior debate about the Diamond Sutra, which I would be interested in reading. I may have misunderstood. But if there's a thread where you had a debate or discussion about the Diamond Sutra, I'd be interested in reading it.
Conrad.
There was no prior debate on the Diamond Sutra that was conducted by Compassionate and myself, as far as I know.
@nigelart I'd never heard of the Pali sutras until I joined this forum. I've never known anyone in the Tibetan tradition to mention them. This is reality. Welcome to reality.
Me too. I I'd never heard of the Nikayas until I got born into this body. Welcome to reality.
As I understand it, from an enlightened perspective there is no dharma. That doesn't mean that the wrong idea that there is dharma can't be very useful to those of us who are not enlightened.
I would not go as far as you to state that the idea that there is dharma is wrong. If it were true that from an enlightened perspective there is no dharma, the Buddha would've never taught it.
the mahayanas have found it necessary to add other sutras which has dubious origin.
The scholarship on this is changing, due to new discoveries. The day may come when such sectarianism will become obsolete. OH NO! Then what will we do? We may have to actually get along, and practice compassion and loving-kindness toward either other! Ya think?
the mahayanas have found it necessary to add other sutras which has dubious origin.
The scholarship on this is changing, due to new discoveries. The day may come when such sectarianism will become obsolete. OH NO! Then what will we do? We may have to actually get along, and practice compassion and loving-kindness toward either other! Ya think?
That's a great vision, albeit somewhat utopian. While all of us would love to bask in the glory of a unified Buddhist teaching, there are sadly too many extremely contradictory and mutually conflicting doctrines embedded within various Buddhist sects, which makes any attempts at reconciliation utterly impossible (that is, unless we all decide to move and live in a bizarro world).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It's just comforting to know we're right and they're wrong.
:crazy:
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
There doesn't have to be a unified teaching for peace and harmony to occur. It just takes a view of pluralism and acceptance. That may be equally utopian but the mechanism is via pluralism instead of a unified sectarianism.
There doesn't have to be a unified teaching for peace and harmony to occur. It just takes a view of pluralism and acceptance. That may be equally utopian but the mechanism is via pluralism instead of a unified sectarianism.
Gotta love forum moderators:) It just occurred to me that moderators decided to relocate this discussion thread, which is about gaining familiarity with the Buddha's original teaching, into the 'Advanced Ideas' section. Seriously? If this basic discussion is deemed 'advanced', what do we do with truly advanced ideas then?
There doesn't have to be a unified teaching for peace and harmony to occur. It just takes a view of pluralism and acceptance. That may be equally utopian but the mechanism is via pluralism instead of a unified sectarianism.
I could not agree more.
That's great, Nige, welcome aboard. So, when will you join us in the peace-and-harmony dept., and dispense with the barbed provocations?
Conrad, have you read all of this thread? If you read the thread, you'll find the answer to your question. The discussion was mainly between Jeffrey and nigel.
@nigelart, which buddhists are proudly proclaiming that they have not read scripture? Is that a cheap shot directed towards zen?
I met all kinds of Buddhists in my daily practice, because I am a Buddhist instructor. I don't divide them into Zen etc., but I've noticed that almost all of those practitioners never made any effort to read even a single original teaching by the Buddha. Some of them are almost wearing that attitude as a badge of honor.
I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, I just personally find it odd. Sort of like meeting a Christian who never... forget it!
Zen:
"A special transmission outside the scriptures, Not founded upon words and letters; By pointing directly to one's mind It lets one see into one's own true nature and thus attain Buddhahood."
Which is one of the reasons why personal interaction with a zen teacher is considered quite important.
It's quite common in Zen, not much book learning going on in some zen traditions. According to zen, prajna arises with samadhi, not really by thinking about stuff and reading books.
That's great, Nige, welcome aboard. So, when will you join us in the peace-and-harmony dept., and dispense with the barbed provocations?
What you call 'barbed provocations' I call 'search for genuine meaning in the Buddha's teaching'. Tomato-tomahto.
We cannot abandon any critical reasoning simply for the lovey-dovey universal acceptance. At least I'm not willing/capable of doing so. Fairies and unicorns are so darn cute, I couldn't agree more. Welcome to reality.
There's a difference between "critical reasoning" and "in your face". Here on this forum, most of us try to stick to the former and stay away from the latter. Note that I said we try.
Me too. I I'd never heard of the Nikayas until I got born into this body. Welcome to reality.Really? I practiced Tibetan Buddhism in a couple of previous lifetimes. Is this a competition? ( I couldn't resist that. ) But seriously, what's your point? You study your scripture, others study theirs. What's the problem? Zen and TB masters don't discuss the Pali texts. If you're unhappy with that (which you seem to be), take the issue up with them.
I could not agree more.
That's great, Nige, welcome aboard. So, when will you join us in the peace-and-harmony dept., and dispense with the barbed provocations?
This may be a pipe dream, C_W. Nigel's going after the moderating team, now. Peace and harmony don't seem to be his thing.
Have you ever read a document that wasn't influenced by a person's views or agendas?
Point taken, but if we don't make the effort to read the source material, then we're dependent on second hand opinions about the source material, which is even more subjective and unreliable.
Spiny
Yeah that is why we test the teachings (the ones we take interest in) ourselves.
There's a difference between "critical reasoning" and "in your face". Here on this forum, most of us try to stick to the former and stay away from the latter. Note that I said we try.
Hear, hear!
nigel, your posts here have nothing to do with the "search for genuine meaning in the Buddha's teachings". That may be what you do in your spare time, but here your tone has been consistently provocational.
You wouldn't happen to know a former member of ours from Australia, would you? Here he was known as DharmaDhatu (affectionately, "DD"). Elsewhere he's known as "Element". You two would get along famously.
Comments
Buddhadharma is very practical.
Either the teachings work or they don't.
And that is for the individual practitioner to find out through engagement with dharma via life and meditation.
Different vehicles exists because there are different capacities and mind-streams.
Just like people are attracted towards zen and others towards different vehicles, it all based on karma.
time for curry.
My reasoning, that caused others to consider me fundamentalist, is this:
* I'm interested in doing something I do not know how to do: to cultivate Clear Mind.
* Since I do not know how to do it, I should consult with people who do.
* According to Wikipedia, the Pali canon probably teaches what is closest to what the Buddha originally taught. That doesn't mean it's perfect, it's just likely that it's closest to the source.
* Therefore, I should take direction from the Pali literature.
* Similarly, if I wanted to learn to drive, I would consult with people who knew how to drive, and if I wanted to learn to knit I would consult with people who knew how to knit.
* If I had a disagreement with someone who knew how to drive, when I did not know how to drive, the most likely cause is that I do not understand. What I would then do is hassle them until I did.
* On the other hand, if I have a disagreement with someone who does not know how to knit themselves, one possible cause is that they do not understand. What I would do then is hassle them until I have a better, clearer, more useful understanding. Also they might benefit from this in their own way.
--The reliance on authority, which I only consider sensible, was considered "fundamentalism."
However, the result of this are not standard Buddhist beliefs: I do not imagine that there are any Buddhists who would agree with, or even follow, what I think is true.
A big part of my inner life is as a Christian. --Yet, many Christians also would not recognize me as a "true" Christian, because my beliefs in Christianity are also highly idiosyncratic.
Conrad.
“Suppose a monk were to say: ‘Friends, I heard and received this from the Lord’s own lips: this is the Dharma, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teaching’, then, monks, you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Sutras and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be: ‘Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk’, and the matter is to be rejected.”
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: The Great Passing (The Buddha’s Last Days) - 4.8
You ought to go back and reexamine your teacher's words in the light of the above admonition of the original founder of Buddhism. Don't take anything uncritically at the face value -- this is the hallmark of a true Buddhist practice. All I did is supply a quote from the sutra, without claiming I understand it. To me, the quote states that the Buddha never taught Dharma. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong in that understanding.
In any case, I appreciate the opportunity to post that .... uh rant, I guess. It is worth the read, because there is a difference in attitude online that gives a poor impression to new people..
Nice to meet you.
Conrad.
I am an empirical transcendental Christian Buddhist.
Conrad.
So apologies. Apologies to anyone else this week such as @Iktomi.
God, I'm so messed up!
you are one brave lad for posing this question here.
Be prepared for all hell to break loose.
Comments like "I dont really care what the sutta says"
is pretty common here.
I am already sending you loads of metta.
Most Buddhist scholars agree that the pali canon is the most
reliable record of what the Buddha taught.
Of course, there will always be people who would then exclaim: "I don't really care about the alphabet!", but such people are sad, don't you think?
I've read the Gandhari version of Dhammapada, nothing earth shattering so far (compared to the Pali version of the same text).
And I object to being called 'old bean'. Instead, I would much appreciate it if you could call me 'new bean'.
Hey, if everything else fails, we can always twirl a flower, no? There are many sects in Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. They tend to differ profoundly in what aspects of the doctrine they focus on. To bundle them all up under Zen and TB would be naive.
And I've never claimed that TB and Zen don't propagate the sangha. All I said was the transcendentalist streams within the Buddhist tradition denies the sangha.
@nigelart I'd never heard of the Pali sutras until I joined this forum. I've never known anyone in the Tibetan tradition to mention them. This is reality. Welcome to reality.
This is not like saying there are Christians who've never heard of Jesus. All Buddhists have heard of the Buddha. How many Christians have heard of the Nag Hammadi library? The fact is that Buddhists of the different traditions have studied the texts of their tradition. That's how it works. That's perfectly normal. Chill.
I would suspect that not everyone agreed even in buddhas sangha. Have you ever been anywhere in your life where everyone agreed?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73357171/Whose-Buddhism-is-Truest-Tricycle-Summer-2011
Why do the mahayana schools acknowledge and accept the pali suttas?
The only difference is, in addition to the pali suttas, the mahayanas have found it necessary to add other sutras which has dubious origin.
For me the suttas describe the content of the Buddhas teaching, while the sutras represent a poetic description of his experience, so both are useful and important in understanding the Dharma.
Spiny
Spiny
Conrad.
Mathematicians are interested in truth, but when it was impossible to take the square root of negative one, they invented an answer. Because it was useful.
Conrad.
:crazy:
Conrad, have you read all of this thread? If you read the thread, you'll find the answer to your question. The discussion was mainly between Jeffrey and nigel.
"A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to one's mind
It lets one see into one's own true nature and thus attain Buddhahood."
Which is one of the reasons why personal interaction with a zen teacher is considered quite important.
It's quite common in Zen, not much book learning going on in some zen traditions. According to zen, prajna arises with samadhi, not really by thinking about stuff and reading books.
We cannot abandon any critical reasoning simply for the lovey-dovey universal acceptance. At least I'm not willing/capable of doing so. Fairies and unicorns are so darn cute, I couldn't agree more. Welcome to reality.
nigel, your posts here have nothing to do with the "search for genuine meaning in the Buddha's teachings". That may be what you do in your spare time, but here your tone has been consistently provocational.
You wouldn't happen to know a former member of ours from Australia, would you? Here he was known as DharmaDhatu (affectionately, "DD"). Elsewhere he's known as "Element". You two would get along famously.