Edicts of Ashoka

zenff

I was looking into the history of Buddhism and what the oldest sources of information are.

The first tangible evidence of Buddhism isn’t very concerned with Buddhism when you think about it. The main character of the Edicts is Emperor Ashoka and Dharma is the ideology he has in mind for his Empire. He’s as trustworthy in presenting the real facts as any politician is.
And this first “evidence” dates from roughly two hundred years after Buddha Gautama supposedly died.

And then, after another two hundred years - and we know that politics has interfered with the subject - we find the first manuscripts on it.

Another two hundred years later we finally have a biography of the Buddha.
That’s not good.

The time of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[4] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

The Edicts of Ashoka are a collection of 33 inscriptions on the Pillars of Ashoka, as well as boulders and cave walls, made by the Emperor Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty during his reign from 269 BCE to 231 BCE. These inscriptions are dispersed throughout the areas of modern-day Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan and represent the first tangible evidence of Buddhism.
Although Buddhism and the Buddha are mentioned, the edicts focus on social and moral precepts, rather than specific religious practices or the philosophical dimension of Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka

The Gandhāran Buddhist Texts are the oldest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered, dating from about the 1st century CE.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandharan_Buddhist_texts

Of these, the Buddhacarita is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

My point:

We don’t have much reliable information on what the Buddha taught. We can’t even be sure there really ever was one.

I don’t want to exaggerate my skepticism so I’d say something was going on back then. There appears to have been some movement proclaiming kindness and morality for the sake of welfare and happiness in this life and the next.
And these notions were called Dharma and attributed to Buddha. That was something Emperor Ashoka could refer to.
Though that could very well have been the interpretation of Buddhism he thought was good for his Empire; not necessarily the authentic thing.

All the rest is younger and has an even weaker link to whatever could have been the teaching of the Buddha.

Floating_Abu

As for the Dhamma texts, practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding of what they meant — and did not count as showing them true respect. True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the Dhamma.

This attitude toward the Dhamma parallels what ancient cultures called "warrior knowledge" — the knowledge that comes from developing skills in difficult situations — as opposed to the "scribe knowledge" that people sitting in relative security and ease can write down in words. Of course, warriors need to use words in their training, but they view a text as authoritative only if its teachings are borne out in practice. The Canon itself encourages this attitude when it quotes the Buddha as teaching his aunt, "As for the teachings of which you may know, 'These teachings lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to divesting, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

Thus the ultimate authority in judging a teaching is not whether the teaching can be found in a text. It lies in each person's relentless honesty in putting the Dhamma to the test and carefully monitoring the results.

When Ajaan Mun had reached the point where he could guarantee that the path to the noble attainments was still open, he returned to the northeast to inform Ajaan Sao and then to continue wandering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/customs.html

zenff

Thanks @Floating_Abu for your reaction.
What I think you could be trying to say with it, is that we can test the teachings. They are not correct because they originate from the Buddha (we don’t really know that) but because they describe a mechanism we can put to the test and prove to be right or wrong.

First: I think it is one hell of a step to eliminate authority-based beliefs and not everyone in the Buddhist community has made that step.

Second: this idea of a verifiable mechanism of spiritual progress has its problems. I think it works up to a point. We can probably measure psychological states and how they relate to the Buddhist lifestyle or practice. And I wouldn’t be surprised if people who keep the five precepts and regularly meditate would do generally well on such a test.

But enlightenment is a blurry concept. There’s no way to measure it. Also concepts like karma and rebirth (supposing we agree on what exactly they mean) are not falsifiable and so they are not really testable.

Part of the come-and-see- for-yourself invitation is misleading. Some Buddhist concepts are not really open to testing. Yes, we can bring ourselves to the point where we believe in them; but that’s something different. We can bring ourselves to believing any crap in the world just by going through the moves; faking it till we make it. But that’s not the idea of come-and-see- for-yourself.

In your quote, has the monk found proof that it is possible to attain arhatship or has he proved, what we all knew beforehand, that people can convince themselves of being enlightened?

Floating_Abu

Dear @zenff

Thankyou kindly for your considered response. What wonderful questions and enquiry and how refreshingly honest.

We all speak from experience only yes? And therefore I can only share mine. Please take it from me what you will, and in recognition that I may too just be another loon on the world wide web

Thanks @Floating_Abu for your reaction.
What I think you could be trying to say with it, is that we can test the teachings. They are not correct because they originate from the Buddha (we don’t really know that) but because they describe a mechanism we can put to the test and prove to be right or wrong.

Yes I guess that is what I was saying in a short cut way because I was feeling lazy. Thankyou for enunciating it for me.

First: I think it is one hell of a step to eliminate authority-based beliefs and not everyone in the Buddhist community has made that step.

Yes but of course, nor do we need them to. My belief is that everyone is just where they are. That said, where every one else is is irrelevant to where you are and how you choose to be. It is said in the scriptures (and forgive me for sounding like a preacher thusly ) 'Better to go alone that walk in the company of fools.'

And this is not something derogatory or anything. It is just a basic recognition that we cannot truly control or change anyone else but ourself. If people want to stay within the realm of authority based beliefs, that is fine -- andat least in Buddhism it has some use. ie. everyone starts with belief, and probably hope and fear. That is the only way we can start our journey. But the Buddhist practice, which is what the genuine crown-jewel of Buddhism is, will defuse those beliefs by itself IF we practice.

In Chinese, it has been said using a thorn to get rid of a thorn, or in Buddhist terms, a raft to cross the river. The Buddha never asked us to keep the raft nor should we, but we can recognise and be grateful for its voyage.

So beliefs is OK for a while, and can be a good encouragement assuming one also has good practice guidance.

Second: this idea of a verifiable mechanism of spiritual progress has its problems. I think it works up to a point. We can probably measure psychological states and how they relate to the Buddhist lifestyle or practice. And I wouldn’t be surprised if people who keep the five precepts and regularly meditate would do generally well on such a test.

But enlightenment is a blurry concept. There’s no way to measure it. Also concepts like karma and rebirth (supposing we agree on what exactly they mean) are not falsifiable and so they are not really testable.

Yes, it is blurry until it is realised. It is like that. Then you know. BAM. There is no doubt (even when there is doubt)

As to karma and rebirth, yes perfect -- to know that you do not even know exactly what it means is perfect. It is the ones who think they do that are more worrisome.

Everyone takes this road differently. My own good fortune was I never stopped or spun myself around these concepts. It is also true I admit I had some intrinsic sense of these concepts from the start so I was lucky.

So -- as awful as it sounds -- and I would think it sounds completely horrible -- the practice does work like this - a little bit of an uncertain path akin to life itself. Life...look at it. It is all around you and it is alive, dynamic, it changes here and there. Life is not the straight line and clear map that we humans probably crave to some degree (guilty2) and as life is Dharma, and Dharma is life, so too does the mysterious principle work in the realm of Dharma practice ie Buddhism.

The verifiable results you want or possibly doubt though does not matter when the clarity arises in your mind, when your heart's sufferings which only you know most intimately are quietened, when you have greater dominion over your own actions and thoughts...

These are things which we can never take out of the fridge or on paper to show someone. They are never verifiable in this manner even though there are some who claim such "achievements".

And were this you, you would never need another ounce of evidence from anyone else. ANYONE else, @zenff because that truth would have spoken so truly in your heart, and being that you are at the stage of doubt beyond doubt. Where even doubt cannot mar your understanding anymore.

It is a tricky business though, IMO, and expert (genuine genuine genuine) guidance can only be a boon for the practitioner with a good heart.

But it can be done.

(By the way for my first few years, I ran around asking what exactly the "§=($ is practice anyway?)

Part of the come-and-see- for-yourself invitation is misleading. Some Buddhist concepts are not really open to testing. Yes, we can bring ourselves to the point where we believe in them; but that’s something different. We can bring ourselves to believing any crap in the world just by going through the moves; faking it till we make it. But that’s not the idea of come-and-see- for-yourself.

Yupper. Exactly and what a great thought to keep.

In my first few years, my biggest BIGGEST fear was that I would become some self deluded spiritual jerk who would not only have deceived myself but much more unfortunately go on to mislead and harm others.

It is a serious responsibility to undertake to guide another, exactly because the ego mind is so extremely subtle, so extremely conniving...

But your suspicions also serves you well I think.

You call yourself @zenff, and if this is the case if I assume you practice Zen, then I have found zazen a good tool. Try believing while you are sitting, or when your mind yells to get up, or when that pain that you have had inside for so long bubbles up, or when your foot starts to hurt. Belief is redundant in zazen and it is therefore a good rudimentary tool for any seeker of Zen.

With ongoing meditation and Buddhist practice, the truths that can be known should and will arise in your own heart/mind. And you will know this is true BECAUSE it was not what someone told you, or hinted to you, or inferred to you. It is because it arises in your own heart, in truth, that you will know. That is the beauty of Zen practice and that is also why over analysis and discussion and reading often hinders students more than helps. But I guess that also can't be helped

In your quote, has the monk found proof that it is possible to attain arhatship or has he proved, what we all knew beforehand, that people can convince themselves of being enlightened?

Ajahn Mun I believe was fully enlightened. His practice depth and insights can be seen.

How you say. You can evaluate someone's practice depth through their writings also, if it has the sense of practice, it can be known to another who practices.

But the fact is it does not matter whether Ajahn Mun was truly an Arahant or not, he has led by example, and when the flower blooms in your own heart, you can only smile.

FWIW.

Well wishes,
Abu

Cinorjer

Interesting topic. I think I know the point you're trying to make. It's true we now know enough about how cultures take history and mythmaking and merge them together to weave a story that's more inspirational than historically accurate. What are the odds that our Buddhist history and teachings that survived in the sutras are entirely accurate? Only someone that insists on divine intervention would make that claim. So then we are reduced to quibbling over details. What, exactly, did Buddha say, and what words were inserted later in his name to make a point? Did the first Buddhist council actually take place, and if so what exactly happened? And so on. It's true, the first archeological evidence is some stone stupas from about 200 BC that pretty much tell us Buddhism existed. Beyond that, we have the claim that those monks remembered everything perfectly and recorded it exactly as spoken, as passed down through multiple generations. Uh huh.

I don't buy that. Oh, I know they must have got some of it right. Buddha's voice has a certain clarity and wisdom that seems to stand out from the page at times. Physical evidence really doesn't mean anything. We have lots of physical evidence of Greek temple worship and the actual writings of Greek believers in their Gods. We know exactly how they practiced their religion from their own words while they were doing so. Yet, we don't go around worshipping those Gods. Their message no longer speaks to us.

So it's the message passed down to us, the Dharma, that has a life of its own.

person

If the authenticity of the teachings is a concern I'd suggest focusing on some of the early Indian Buddhists like Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti. Their works are almost entirely logic based, they aren't easy to understand though but most recent translations will also come with a commentary. The point is that one need not rely on scriptural authority to have confidence in the teachings.

Floating_Abu

All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation (Dumoulin,1998:43)

Nagarjuna

Dakini

One of Ashoka's inscriptions exhorts people to believe in Brahma. That's kind of unexpected.

zenff

@Floating _Abu said (among other things):

"With ongoing meditation and Buddhist practice, the truths that can be known should and will arise in your own heart/mind. And you will know this is true BECAUSE it was not what someone told you, or hinted to you, or inferred to you. It is because it arises in your own heart, in truth, that you will know. That is the beauty of Zen practice and that is also why over analysis and discussion and reading often hinders students more than helps."

@Cinorjer said (among other things):

“So it's the message passed down to us, the Dharma, that has a life of its own.”

And @person referred to Nagarjuna and said:

“The point is that one need not rely on scriptural authority to have confidence in the teachings.”

Thank you all for your great responses; some of it has to sink in but here I have something I can easaly connect with; especially Nagarjuna;
Here’s one essential quote about his line of thinking:

“Nagarjuna rejects all philosophical views, including his own, and claims that he asserts nothing. All concepts, including sunyata and pratityasamutpada are but provisional names and have no independent meaning 4
of their own. (Cheng, 1991:43)´
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf

That’s the problem with Nagarjuna (with Buddhism); that when I look at it and try to get to the heart of it; it is like sand slipping through my fingers. And I don’t know Buddhism, I don’t know anything.
And then I go out and meet Buddhists (like here on a forum) and we discuss Buddhism.
Just weird.

But you people made me realize something. I probably got to give it a rest. I’ll try. I shouldn’t be bothered with people who have specific (or even dogmatic) ideas about Buddhism. Let them. I can’t make the sand slip through their fingers.

“Nagarjuna claims he asserts nothing”. That’s a koan of its own. I'll work on it.

KuJiMieDao

suppose someone is shot in the guts with a bullet, and he only has enough strength to do one of the followings:

1. find out why he was shot
2. figure out what the bullet is made of
3. trace where the bullet came from
4. call 911 for help (or extract the bullet & stop bleeding if he has the know-how)

Some choose 1, 2, or 3, and bleed to death.

Doing the first three choices is all good, but please do # 4 first.

Floating_Abu

But you people made me realize something. I probably got to give it a rest. I’ll try. I shouldn’t be bothered with people who have specific (or even dogmatic) ideas about Buddhism. Let them. I can’t make the sand slip through their fingers.

“Nagarjuna claims he asserts nothing”. That’s a koan of its own. I'll work on it.

If you got one thing out of it, that is enough.

You don't have to worry or be bothered by other people and their perceived dogmatism. If they are lucky, they will grow out of it.

This practice and offering is for you, and your peace and clarity of mind.

Just practice and leave the reading, thoughts and analysis aside for a moment, or more.

Namaste,

Abu

zenff

Thanks.

Floating_Abu

Thankyou also @zenff.

_/\_