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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2012
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?
@nigelart, They go into the Advanced ideas' forum. there are no ideas so advanced here, that they can't be tackled here. This is a modest buddhist forum for those exploring buddhism and are relatively new to it. (the clue is in the name). there are other forums with at least 6 sub-forums all containing anything up to 5 sub-sub forums there. if we're not to your liking, discussion-wise, feel free to go exploring. we all belong to more than one forum, so don't restrict yourself. Just know we're all different. Try this one:
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.
As my article points out the pali canon was composed by someone. And it is unlikely that 500 monks agreed on 45 years of buddhas teachings. You acknowledge that the split in the sangha occured.
Why are the prajnaparamita sutras dubious? Because they were not personally composed by shakyamuni? The pali sutras also were not composed by shakyamuni. The author of the pali canon is unknown.
The prajna paramita sutras should be evaluated based on their content first. We do not assume that something is wise due to date written. Appeals to antiquity (old) and novelty (young) are both logical fallacies. Since you agree there was a split in the sangha obviously a group of monks had a different insight in to buddhas message. As Dakini said we may find earlier scriptures as their thoughts evolved. As my article stated the mahayana scriptures in the ghandhari scrolls could not have been the first writings:
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."
As you say a split occured. There must have been a different insight or vision of buddha's teachings. The thought evolved and was set down as the prajna paramitra sutras. These sutras should be judged by the content. Same goes for the pali canon. Judge it by it's content.
@nigelart should be concerned with how the content of the pali canon can benefit himself and his students. Not by the fact that Buddha said it or that it was earlier. Focus on the content not the 'hype'.
Jeesh! It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.:rolleyes:
On the contrary, the truth comes out in kidding, and indeed it speaks to the topic.
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
Jeesh! It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.:rolleyes:
On the contrary, the truth comes out in kidding, and indeed it speaks to the topic.
No, there is a quotation that states that there is truth in wine. That was just a tongue-in-cheek remark. The fact that so many members contribute and enjoy the discussions would indicate the exaggeration.... why don't you go check it out for yourself? I'm sure it would be right up your street.
@Dakini well, i do have a full-time job that keeps me busy, but I've had a couple of days off.
@nigelart should be concerned with how the content of the pali canon can benefit himself and his students. Not by the fact that Buddha said it or that it was earlier. Focus on the content not the 'hype'.
If I were to do that, I would incur arrogance. How can I, an unenlightened earthling, claim to know which content can benefit myself and my students? Anyone who is not enlightened ought to adopt a humble enough attitude and admit that to attempt such a feat would be the height of human arrogance.
What you label as 'hype', I look at as authenticity. There are authentic Buddha's teachings, the ones he had delivered during the 45 years while he was acting as a teacher, and they remain worthwhile and authentic to this day, and onward. It is our task, as the Buddha's followers, to meticulously examine any and all propounded teachings, compare them to the Buddha's words as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas, compare them also to the code of discipline (encoded in the Eightfold Noble Path), and if something about the propounded teaching is amiss, we are obliged to reject it (an example would be a hypothetical teaching which states that it's OK to indulge in promiscuous sexual behavior).
I know that this will get interpreted as barbed and 'in your face' attitude, but I'm merely repeating the Buddha's admonition (so don't shoot me, the messenger; shoot the Buddha instead!) And also, I'm not hung up on what's earlier vs. what's later, only on what's authentic vs. what looks a bit questionable.
To summarize: being unenlightened myself, I am clueless as to which content is misleading vs. which content is enlightening. I'm like a blind person, not being able to see things around me and relying on a guide. To fancy otherwise would be extremely stupid and arrogant of me.
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
If I were to do that, I would incur arrogance. How can I, an unenlightened earthling, claim to know which content can benefit myself and my students? Anyone who is not enlightened ought to adopt a humble enough attitude and admit that to attempt such a feat would be the height of human arrogance.
As a teacher, you must calculate what you teach, and to whom. You discriminate and select certain subject matter. so one would presume that you could at least hope that what you teach can benefit your students.....
What you label as 'hype', I look at as authenticity. There are authentic Buddha's teachings, the ones he had delivered during the 45 years while he was acting as a teacher, and they remain worthwhile and authentic to this day, and onward. It is our task, as the Buddha's followers, to meticulously examine any and all propounded teachings, compare them to the Buddha's words as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas, compare them also to the code of discipline (encoded in the Eightfold Noble Path), and if something about the propounded teaching is amiss, we are obliged to reject it (an example would be a hypothetical teaching which states that it's OK to indulge in promiscuous sexual behavior).
Yes. that is why so many of us consider the Kalama sutta to be so poignant....
I know that this will get interpreted as barbed and 'in your face' attitude, but I'm merely repeating the Buddha's admonition (so don't shoot me, the messenger; shoot the Buddha instead!) And also, I'm not hung up on what's earlier vs. what's later, only on what's authentic vs. what looks a bit questionable.
then why make such a song-and-dance about the material people read? it's not necessarily the provenance, origin, and authenticity of ther document, but its message.
To summarize: being unenlightened myself, I am clueless as to which content is misleading vs. which content is enlightening. I'm like a blind person, not being able to see things around me and relying on a guide. To fancy otherwise would be extremely stupid and arrogant of me.
then you too, should study the Kalama sutta and use your discernment and evaluation to decide which teachings resonate with you. your students look up to you and consider that you must be a teacher because you know more than they do. don't use inverted arrogance to proclaim any cluelessness. i don't believe it for a moment.
Its perhapes better not to bother with threads like this when people proclaim why hasn't so and so read the Original teachings its always from the side of their bias mind, The pointless sectarian nature of it has already been pointed out now it just awaits people to get bored with it and leave it alone.
As a teacher, you must calculate what you teach, and to whom. You discriminate and select certain subject matter. so one would presume that you could at least hope that what you teach can benefit your students.....
I teach only the standard Buddhist material: Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Noble Path, dependent arising, suffering, non-substantiality and impermanence. Nothing out of the ordinary. I leave the fancier stuff to those who feel the need to embellish the Buddha's teaching.
then you too, should study the Kalama sutta and use your discernment and evaluation to decide which teachings resonate with you. your students look up to you and consider that you must be a teacher because you know more than they do.
Well, to be honestly perfect, I'm not really their teacher, just an instructor. I show them the ropes, and pretty soon they arrive at the point where they know exactly everything that I know about Buddhism. We don't dwell on the teacher/student relationship. It's like learning to ride a bicycle -- you may need an instructor, but pretty soon you learn it and then you don't ever need to see that instructor again.
Once my students graduate, that's it, we never see each other again.
don't use inverted arrogance to proclaim any cluelessness. i don't believe it for a moment.
Its perhapes better not to bother with threads like this when people proclaim why hasn't so and so read the Original teachings its always from the side of their bias mind, The pointless sectarian nature of it has already been pointed out now it just awaits people to get bored with it and leave it alone.
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.
If I were to do that, I would incur arrogance. How can I, an unenlightened earthling, claim to know which content can benefit myself and my students? Anyone who is not enlightened ought to adopt a humble enough attitude and admit that to attempt such a feat would be the height of human arrogance.
I wouldn't think you were arrogant if you showed me how the content of the Pali Canon benefited me.
Arrogance is not about knowing something. It is about believing you are superior. For that very reason you should focus on the content and not the pedigree. You see anyone can understand the Pali Canon. We all have the capacity. Thus nobody is special, superior, or more of a buddhist.
One of the barriers to overcoming ignorance is the belief that something cannot possibly be understood. Another barrier is the belief that we ourselves are too stupid. Another barrier is that we already know everything.
It is our task, as the Buddha's followers, to meticulously examine any and all propounded teachings, compare them to the Buddha's words as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas, compare them also to the code of discipline (encoded in the Eightfold Noble Path), and if something about the propounded teaching is amiss, we are obliged to reject it (an example would be a hypothetical teaching which states that it's OK to indulge in promiscuous sexual behavior).
Sounds like a life's practice. May you be happy and benefit beings.
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.
Guys.. I don't know if you're aware of this, but from my perspective, Nigel is being fairly honest about what he believes, and several people are being pretty hostile to him.
Some people do in fact profess content-based beliefs around this topic, and it seems to me that who do not profess content-based beliefs get very hostile to those who do. Perhaps because if they followed their own rules they'd have no basis to produce a reply?
I wouldn't think you were arrogant if you showed me how the content of the Pali Canon benefited me.
If I thought I was capable of showing you how the content of the Pali Canon can benefit you, I'd be incredibly arrogant. That's because I haven't got the slightest clue how can that content benefit you. I repeat, it is only an enlightened Buddhist practitioner who is qualified to know that. Us, the lowly instructors, can only relay to you that the Buddha had left us a firm promise that if we were to follow his instructions diligently, the beneficial fruits will come swiftly to us. But how and in what form would those beneficial fruits come to each and any individual practitioner, that's something that unenlightened people cannot possibly know.
Guys.. I don't know if you're aware of this, but from my perspective, Nigel is being fairly honest about what he believes, and several people are being pretty hostile to him.
Some people do in fact profess content-based beliefs around this topic, and it seems to me that who do not profess content-based beliefs get very hostile to those who do. Perhaps because if they followed their own rules they'd have no basis to produce a reply?
Conrad.
conradcook, I looked at the first page and it seemed to me that each post was content based. Can you say something about how you assess whether a post is conent based or not? Is this post content based? :hiding:
@conradcook It's not the honesty people object to, it's the tone. Fairly troll-like. Really, the OP's question has been answered. If he doesn't accept the answer, that's his problem, but we've done our job.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If it is truly the fruits that matter then why judge the validity of the teaching by the doctrine used? Wouldn't it be better then to judge the teaching by effect it has on the individual?
I wouldn't think you were arrogant if you showed me how the content of the Pali Canon benefited me.
If I thought I was capable of showing you how the content of the Pali Canon can benefit you, I'd be incredibly arrogant. That's because I haven't got the slightest clue how can that content benefit you. I repeat, it is only an enlightened Buddhist practitioner who is qualified to know that. Us, the lowly instructors, can only relay to you that the Buddha had left us a firm promise that if we were to follow his instructions diligently, the beneficial fruits will come swiftly to us. But how and in what form would those beneficial fruits come to each and any individual practitioner, that's something that unenlightened people cannot possibly know.
You wouldn't be arrogant if you didn't think you were better than others due to your knowledge.
You do not understand what the word arrogance means.
only an enlightened Buddhist practitioner who is qualified to know how the content of the Pali canon can be of benefit
Why do you think that? In my experience I have benefited from the content of the Pali Canon in my daily life. Such as:
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
If it is truly the fruits that matter then why judge the validity of the teaching by the doctrine used? Wouldn't it be better then to judge the teaching by effect it has on the individual?
Absolutely. But you see, what I'm trying to say is that I, as an unenlightened instructor, have no means of knowing what are the effects that a teaching has on the individual. We're not talking Atkin's diet where it is obvious to anyone whether the participants are losing weight or not.
Why do you think that? In my experience I have benefited from the content of the Pali Canon in my daily life. Such as:
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
I guess I see what you are saying. The student has to do the work.
The above cited passage did something useful to you, but I'd have no clue as to what was it that it did. Only you know. That's why I'm not professing to be able to lead you toward freedom. Only a fully enlightened teacher can truly do that.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If it is truly the fruits that matter then why judge the validity of the teaching by the doctrine used? Wouldn't it be better then to judge the teaching by effect it has on the individual?
Absolutely. But you see, what I'm trying to say is that I, as an unenlightened instructor, have no means of knowing what are the effects that a teaching has on the individual. We're not talking Atkin's diet where it is obvious to anyone whether the participants are losing weight or not.
That's a fair point. I think this is why TB and Zen traditions place such importance on the lineage and transmission from a qualified teacher.
By simply walking the students through a prescribed set of exercises, something I didn't invent myself. I'm merely showing them the ropes -- how to warm up properly, how to sit properly, what to meditate on, how to close their meditation session, how to do the post-meditation body stretching, how to approach the doctrine etc. It is then up to them to diligently do the requisite work, and to graduate, or not.
I still don't get this. Do you take it on faith that Buddha was enlightened? Or do you know that somehow?
Then how are you an instructor?
By simply walking the students through a prescribed set of exercises, something I didn't invent myself. I'm merely showing them the ropes -- how to warm up properly, how to sit properly, what to meditate on, how to close their meditation session, how to do the post-meditation body stretching, how to approach the doctrine etc. It is then up to them to diligently do the requisite work, and to graduate, or not.
I still don't get this. Do you take it on faith that Buddha was enlightened? Or do you know that somehow?
I take it on faith. I have no other ways of knowing for sure, so faith it is.
How are they doing?
Again, if I claimed that I know how are they doing, I'd be saying that I'm enlightened. But because I'm not, I frankly have no idea how are they doing. I can only know whether they've attended the sessions and the presentations, if they're tardy or diligent, and if they've managed to grok the 3 seals of existence and such. But that's merely a thin shallow rote learning skill, something that will or will not come in handy for them later on in life.
If you yourself have not attained the fruits of what you teach.
Then aren't you in the same boat as those who don't read the original teachings of the buddha and call themselves buddhists?
Anyone can parrot the teachings, which is fine and admirable.
but real buddhism starts with ourselves and true engagement.
don't you see the irony?
No I don't see the irony. Once again, I'd like to clarify that 'teach' is a very strong word here (and yes, my bad, I've probably used it recklessly earlier on). I don't teach, I merely instruct.
Also, I don't parrot the teachings, I explain, sometimes at great lengths, how do certain facets of the teaching resonate with me personally, in my everyday life. In other words, it is my obligation as an instructor to provide full disclosure to the students. But that's as far as I go, because I feel no urge to embellish, revamp, improve, reinvent or beautify the Buddha's original teaching. I feel it is perfect as it is.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@nigelart +3 points and a goldstar for proper use of the word grok
But that is merely on the basis of faith. It is important not to dismiss other teachings on the basis of faith. perfection becomes perfection when you yourself realize perfection. faith is an excellent vehicle, but it can be an idiots one as well.
But that is merely on the basis of faith. It is important not to dismiss other teachings on the basis of faith. perfection becomes perfection when you yourself realize perfection. faith is an excellent vehicle, but it can be an idiots one as well.
Point, dig, and swipe in my direction duly taken. Let's just say that I'm perfectly content to be called an idiot because I have faith in the Buddha. There.
@nigelart, I was more curious if the students enjoyed the class. I didn't mean 'their progress'.
Ah, it's always touch-and-go. Some people complain that there is too much intellectual content, others at the same time complain that there is not enough intellectual content, others want more talks on morality while some don't care about talks on morality at all.
It's impossible to please humans, which is why all dispositionally conditioned phenomena are suffering.
Seems to me that people may be taking this discussion quite personally and feeling attacked. It might be wise for all involved to take a step back from it for a little while and maybe think about where everyone else is coming from before continuing.
That's a fair point. I think this is why TB and Zen traditions place such importance on the lineage and transmission from a qualified teacher.
It has nothing to do with that. A student can easily know whether his/her practice is bringing the desired fruits or not. A student doesn't need a qualified teacher to confirm or dispute that. No one can know this better than the student himself.
Suppose I'm teaching an incredibly talented, insightful person. That student, even though he starts with no understanding of Buddhism, can potentially quickly progress on the path and swiftly attain fruits. This despite the fact that I, the instructor, haven't attained the fruits yet. This is similar to basketball coaches -- they are not expected, by any stretch of imagination, to play better basketball than the players who are being trained by them.
Nigel, you're new here. Jason and Taiyaki have been around a long time. Jason is a moderator, btw. So I think Jason knows Taiyaki a lot better than you do, and has a better sense of his drift.
We answered your OP pages ago. The reason many Buddhists don't study the Pali sutras is that their teachers don't tell them there is such a thing. Students are busy studying the texts they're given, and practicing.
I second Jason's suggestion--let's call it a day here. Heck, let's call it a week.
I wouldn't think you were arrogant if you showed me how the content of the Pali Canon benefited me.
Ah, that's addressed in the Pali Canon. An aspirant, who is "shopping around" for spiritual teachers, asks the Buddha how what he teaches benefits one in this lifetime.
The answer is pretty interesting -- I can try to find it if you like.
Presumably the Pali Canon's recorded answer is intended to apply to that which is learned by the study of the Canon, too.
Nigel, you're new here. Jason and Taiyaki have been around a long time. Jason is a moderator, btw. So I think Jason knows Taiyaki a lot better than you do, and has a better sense of his drift.
We answered your OP pages ago. The reason many Buddhists don't study the Pali sutras is that their teachers don't tell them there is such a thing. Students are busy studying the texts they're given, and practicing.
I second Jason's suggestion--let's call it a day here. Heck, let's call it a week.
I can understand your urge to swiftly and hastily sweep this topic under the rug. Yeah, let's quickly bury it un the back yard, no one will remember it.
Obviously, something about this has hit the nerve, and many seem to be on an extreme defensive here. Not sure why, I just find it odd (and it tickles me).
But to be honest with you, I can't imagine teaching anything other than from my own personal experience.
For instance if I taught a lesson in say watercolors to art students, when I myself have never used watercolors...
it really shows in the students artwork. you'd of course have that one star student who shines regardless of your teaching or lack of teaching.
but if i teach a lesson that i actually have experience in say like charcoal drawing then the students will see the confidence, wonder and energy i bring. along with that is the mastery of the medium/craft.
more students will understand and everyone will succeed because i will know the ins and outs of charcoal drawing.
whereas i have no experience of watercolor. maybe i've seen some or knew theory but i've never found a basic wonder and personal experience of it.
it is night and day in the teachers that know and embody what they teach verses those who don't.
and yes we've all had teachers who are masters at their craft but cannot create a dynamic impression which facilitate learning.
Yes, I have to say this thread 'sounds' a bit prickly....
I don't think anybody has any right to call anyone else any kind of Buddhist, based on the assumption that if they haven't read a lot, they can't be any type of Buddhist worth calling themselves a Buddhist.....
Study of the 4 Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, alone, can lead one to realisation. I was told this by Luang Por Sumedho at the Amaravati monastery, in the UK. But you really have to study them, in depth.
So i find it really rich that someone can be so critical of others and presume to be in a position to judge. Besides, knowing is fine. Doing, is better.
I looked at the first page and it seemed to me that each post was content based. Can you say something about how you assess whether a post is conent based or not? Is this post content based? :hiding:
The term was, profess content-based beliefs. Not write posts that include content.
Nigel is not a troll. A troll is someone who posts something which they know is not true, or ask a question with no authentic desire to hear an answer, just to get a rise out of someone.
In other words, a troll lies about what he believes is true in order to hurt people. Nigel is telling the truth about what he believes is true. He's doing it aggressively because people have been badgering him.
Who wants a lesson in dependent co-arising? Read this thread.
Comments
there are other forums with at least 6 sub-forums all containing anything up to 5 sub-sub forums there.
if we're not to your liking, discussion-wise, feel free to go exploring.
we all belong to more than one forum, so don't restrict yourself.
Just know we're all different.
Try this one:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/index.php
There's stuff in there that would probably go over a Buddha's head!
enjoy.
Why are the prajnaparamita sutras dubious? Because they were not personally composed by shakyamuni? The pali sutras also were not composed by shakyamuni. The author of the pali canon is unknown.
The prajna paramita sutras should be evaluated based on their content first. We do not assume that something is wise due to date written. Appeals to antiquity (old) and novelty (young) are both logical fallacies. Since you agree there was a split in the sangha obviously a group of monks had a different insight in to buddhas message. As Dakini said we may find earlier scriptures as their thoughts evolved. As my article stated the mahayana scriptures in the ghandhari scrolls could not have been the first writings: As you say a split occured. There must have been a different insight or vision of buddha's teachings. The thought evolved and was set down as the prajna paramitra sutras. These sutras should be judged by the content. Same goes for the pali canon. Judge it by it's content.
@nigelart should be concerned with how the content of the pali canon can benefit himself and his students. Not by the fact that Buddha said it or that it was earlier. Focus on the content not the 'hype'.
Go get 'em, Tiger!
Do I have to explain/justify everything to you, Iktomi?
See, I already have a mother..... :bowdown:
The fact that so many members contribute and enjoy the discussions would indicate the exaggeration....
why don't you go check it out for yourself?
I'm sure it would be right up your street.
@Dakini
well, i do have a full-time job that keeps me busy, but I've had a couple of days off.
What you label as 'hype', I look at as authenticity. There are authentic Buddha's teachings, the ones he had delivered during the 45 years while he was acting as a teacher, and they remain worthwhile and authentic to this day, and onward. It is our task, as the Buddha's followers, to meticulously examine any and all propounded teachings, compare them to the Buddha's words as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas, compare them also to the code of discipline (encoded in the Eightfold Noble Path), and if something about the propounded teaching is amiss, we are obliged to reject it (an example would be a hypothetical teaching which states that it's OK to indulge in promiscuous sexual behavior).
I know that this will get interpreted as barbed and 'in your face' attitude, but I'm merely repeating the Buddha's admonition (so don't shoot me, the messenger; shoot the Buddha instead!) And also, I'm not hung up on what's earlier vs. what's later, only on what's authentic vs. what looks a bit questionable.
To summarize: being unenlightened myself, I am clueless as to which content is misleading vs. which content is enlightening. I'm like a blind person, not being able to see things around me and relying on a guide. To fancy otherwise would be extremely stupid and arrogant of me.
it's not necessarily the provenance, origin, and authenticity of ther document, but its message. then you too, should study the Kalama sutta and use your discernment and evaluation to decide which teachings resonate with you.
your students look up to you and consider that you must be a teacher because you know more than they do.
don't use inverted arrogance to proclaim any cluelessness.
i don't believe it for a moment.
Once my students graduate, that's it, we never see each other again. What, you don't believe that I'm unenlightened?
He didn't.
Arrogance is not about knowing something. It is about believing you are superior. For that very reason you should focus on the content and not the pedigree. You see anyone can understand the Pali Canon. We all have the capacity. Thus nobody is special, superior, or more of a buddhist.
One of the barriers to overcoming ignorance is the belief that something cannot possibly be understood. Another barrier is the belief that we ourselves are too stupid. Another barrier is that we already know everything. Sounds like a life's practice. May you be happy and benefit beings.
Some people do in fact profess content-based beliefs around this topic, and it seems to me that who do not profess content-based beliefs get very hostile to those who do. Perhaps because if they followed their own rules they'd have no basis to produce a reply?
Conrad.
I'm not enlightened, either.
C.
You do not understand what the word arrogance means. Why do you think that? In my experience I have benefited from the content of the Pali Canon in my daily life. Such as: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
I guess I see what you are saying. The student has to do the work.
I still don't get this. Do you take it on faith that Buddha was enlightened? Or do you know that somehow? How are they doing?
Then aren't you in the same boat as those who don't read the original teachings of the buddha and call themselves buddhists?
Anyone can parrot the teachings, which is fine and admirable.
but real buddhism starts with ourselves and true engagement.
don't you see the irony?
Also, I don't parrot the teachings, I explain, sometimes at great lengths, how do certain facets of the teaching resonate with me personally, in my everyday life. In other words, it is my obligation as an instructor to provide full disclosure to the students. But that's as far as I go, because I feel no urge to embellish, revamp, improve, reinvent or beautify the Buddha's original teaching. I feel it is perfect as it is.
It is important not to dismiss other teachings on the basis of faith.
perfection becomes perfection when you yourself realize perfection.
faith is an excellent vehicle, but it can be an idiots one as well.
It's impossible to please humans, which is why all dispositionally conditioned phenomena are suffering.
Seems to me that people may be taking this discussion quite personally and feeling attacked. It might be wise for all involved to take a step back from it for a little while and maybe think about where everyone else is coming from before continuing.
Suppose I'm teaching an incredibly talented, insightful person. That student, even though he starts with no understanding of Buddhism, can potentially quickly progress on the path and swiftly attain fruits. This despite the fact that I, the instructor, haven't attained the fruits yet. This is similar to basketball coaches -- they are not expected, by any stretch of imagination, to play better basketball than the players who are being trained by them.
We answered your OP pages ago. The reason many Buddhists don't study the Pali sutras is that their teachers don't tell them there is such a thing. Students are busy studying the texts they're given, and practicing.
I second Jason's suggestion--let's call it a day here. Heck, let's call it a week.
The answer is pretty interesting -- I can try to find it if you like.
Presumably the Pali Canon's recorded answer is intended to apply to that which is learned by the study of the Canon, too.
Conrad.
Obviously, something about this has hit the nerve, and many seem to be on an extreme defensive here. Not sure why, I just find it odd (and it tickles me).
I like your analogy of the coach and players.
But to be honest with you, I can't imagine teaching anything other than from my own personal experience.
For instance if I taught a lesson in say watercolors to art students, when I myself have never used watercolors...
it really shows in the students artwork. you'd of course have that one star student who shines regardless of your teaching or lack of teaching.
but if i teach a lesson that i actually have experience in say like charcoal drawing then the students will see the confidence, wonder and energy i bring. along with that is the mastery of the medium/craft.
more students will understand and everyone will succeed because i will know the ins and outs of charcoal drawing.
whereas i have no experience of watercolor. maybe i've seen some or knew theory but i've never found a basic wonder and personal experience of it.
it is night and day in the teachers that know and embody what they teach verses those who don't.
and yes we've all had teachers who are masters at their craft but cannot create a dynamic impression which facilitate learning.
just my opinion though.
Conrad.
In other words, a troll lies about what he believes is true in order to hurt people. Nigel is telling the truth about what he believes is true. He's doing it aggressively because people have been badgering him.
Who wants a lesson in dependent co-arising? Read this thread.
Conrad.