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.
Non-Buddhist philosophies & their influences on Buddhism
not1not2
Veteran
fofoo wrote:Simple: We were discussing Frauwallners assesment of anatta in early Buddhism. Frauwallner insists Buddha started form samkyha position and did not break with it totally, as there the self is transcendent, the ontological status of self then would be not "non existent" but "not a phenomena".
Regards
That seems strange to me. The suttas don't seem to indicate that Samkhya philosophy was prevalent at the time, nor that the Buddha had his roots in such a thing. Beyond that, this source seems to indicate that Samkhya didn't even develop into a distinct school until at least 500 years after the Buddha's time. It does mention that the pre-cursors of Samkhya thought could be found right around or shortly after the Buddha's time. So, I'm uncertain as to what Samkhya tradition he could have been rooted in.
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/samkhya.htmlHistory
Although Samkhya ("enumeration") is one of the six classical systems of Indian philosophy, its history presents many problems and is the subject of scholarly disagreement. Was there a definite "school" at the earliest stages of its development? Is it possible to identify several separate schools within the tradition? From where were its ideas taken - from the Brahmanical tradition or from a quite separate source? Was it atheistic in its early stages, or has theism been there from the beginning? What is the relation between the explicitly Samkhya texts and those sections of the Great Epic (the Mahabharata) in which Samkhya ideas are expounded? The fact that much disagreement exists should be borne in mind when reading the following summary.
For convenience, four stages in the history of the samkhya tradition may be distinguished.-The traditional founder is Kapila, the first in a line of some twenty-six teachers, but he - as most of them - is a legendary figure. Although this cannot count as "history" in the usual sense of the word, Samkhya teachings have their roots in certain speculations which are found in the Rig Veda and in the oldest prose Upanishads (e.g., the Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya). These may be dated ca. tenth-sixth centuries B.C.E. and in them are found suggestive hints and speculations on the self and on the cosmos, as well as enumerations and lists of entities. The Jain conception of the nature of ultimate release, and the Buddhist notion of the "suffering" which runs through the universe (duhkha[Sanskrit] /dukkha [Pali]) are also to be counted as feeding into that which later becomes the Samkhya tradition. At this first stage there is no "school", not even any single predominant point of view.
-Datable between ca. fifth century B.C.E. and ca. first century C.E. are several texts in which proto-Samkhya speculations are found, and they mark a second stage. These are: the middle Upanishads (especially the Katha and Shvetashvatara); the Charakasamhita (a composite text with its earliest portions maybe from the second century C.E.; the section of the epic Mahabharata (12.219) associated with the name of one Pancashika; chapter 12 of Ashvagosha's Buddhacarita, which dates from the first century C.E.; the section of Book 12 of the Mahabharata known as the Mokshadharma ; and that portion of Book 6 which comprises the Bhagavad Gita (? first-fourth centuries C.E.). The first clear signs of a doctrine of twenty-five principles appear: there is a dualistic, evolutionary perspective, and salvation is by knowing the enumerated principles. Yet certain ideas which become part of the classical teaching do not yet appear. In the later Maitri Upanishad, Samkhya terminology is found, connected with Yoga practice: the exact relation between these two aspects is another matter of scholarly debate. Some writers go so far as to identify particular Samkhya teachers, Charaka and Panchashika in particular, but there is no agreement on this.
-(i). The period from the first century C.E. to ca. the tenth presents us with what has been called "classical" Samkhya, and the teaching now becomes differentiated from other yogic traditions. The major text is the Samkhya-karika of Ishvarakrishna (ca. fourth century C.E.); he was probably a contemporary of the Buddhist Vasubandhu (who wrote a refutation of Samkhya) and of the Samkhya teachers Varshaganya and Vindhyavasa, so that his articulation of the tradition took place during the cultural flowering associated with the Gupta dynasty (ca. 320-540 C.E.). Ishvarakrishna's work was translated into Chinese by Paramartha between 557 and 569 C.E. This important writer also produced a Life of Vasubandhu, and it is from this, as well as from references in the works of the great seventh century Chinese scholar Hsuan-tsang and his pupil Kuei-chi, that we have an idea of the strength of Samkhya at this time. Indeed, it is so influential that the Buddhist logician Dignaga (ca. 480-540 C.E.) vigorously opposes it. A little later the Buddhist Dharmakirti (ca. 610-670 C.E.) also refers to it, and as late as the ninth century Shankara continually argues against it (see under Shankara).There is a reference in the Samkhya-karika to "sixty topics" (shasti-tantra), and the enumeration into sixty is also found in both later Samkhya texts and in a Pancaratra work (see under "Pancharatra"). However the claim that there was a text of this name is arguable.
Several commentaries on the Samkhya-karika were composed. Paramartha wrote one to accompany his translation; Gaudapada's Bhashya, a simple and direct commentary, dates possibly from 600-800 C.E, ; in the ninth century C.E., Vachaspati Mishra - a significant figure in the history of Samkhya - wrote his Samkhyatattvakaumudi, and this was in turn glossed by Narayanatirtha (though according to Dasgupta, this gloss was on Gaudapada's commentary). There are also other commentaries of a most uncertain date - the Mathavritti, the Jayamangala, and the Yuktidipika.
(ii) After this heyday of Samkhya, which lasted for several centuries, the school lost its force and entered a period of decline. This may have been because in place of a vigorous tradition (articulated by several teachers, and creatively pitted against other schools of thought), there came to be an emphasis upon the Samkhya-karika as normative. The eleventh-century Muslim traveller Alberuni, who wrote a work in which he summarizes the teachings of Indian philosophy, bases his summary of Samkhya primarily upon the karika. Similarly, the fourteenth-century Madhava in his summary of sixteen systems of Indian thought (the Sarvadarshanasamgraha) relies solely on the karika.
A final stage is marked by a kind of renaissance. Aniruddha (late fifteenth century) wrote a commentary (bhashya) on the Samkhyapravachanasutra, as did Vijnanabhikshu (late sixteenth century). It is difficult to put a date on these sutras, but because not only Madhava, but also Gunaratna (also fourteenth century) make no reference to them they may well be later than this, a suggestion supported by the late date of the commentary upon them. On the other hand, it may well be that certain ideas or even passages in the sutras derive from the earlier, classical period. Vijnanabhihshu is credited by some scholars with having composed an elementary work on Samkhya, the Samkhyasara. Other late works on Samkhya are the Tattvasamhasutra, Simananda's Samkhyatattvavivecana, and Bhavaganesha's Samkhyatattvayatharthyadipana. Generally, according to some scholars, these late works are clearly influenced by Vedanta. Again, there are differences of scholarly emphasis, some using these late works directly as sources for the interpretation of Samkhya, others exercising a greater or lesser degree of caution in so doing.
It is also interesting to note that Vasubandhu & other major Buddhist figures refuted/opposed the Samkhya school. I really think we should be careful not to conflate the two systems here.
_/\_
metta
0
Comments
Sorry if I was expressingmyself not clear enough, Frauwallner acknowledges that buddhist schools later departed from that view. You see, Buddhism did not develop into an own system until some time too, yet we call Buddhism the very beginning of the Buddha`s teachings. That`s why one has to examine ideas instead of terms. Frauwallner speaks of "the early Buddhists" which presumably refers to nikayas only, when he argues that they subscribed to samkyha postion of self as "passive observer".
Have you read post # 517? I cited there from wikipedia.
Very little historical data is known for sure regarding Maharishi Kapila's life. He is said to have lived in the Indian subcontinent, some say around 500 BC, other accounts give much earlier dates. Tradition has it that Shakyamuni Buddha studied the Samkhya system before his "awakening," putting Kapila's birth at least before that time.
I still would be glad what "tradition" holds that view. Samkhya itself only? Or do we find evidence in nikayas that the Buddha really studied Samkhya system?
regards
What my point was is that we don't find Samkhya philosophy developing until around 500 years after the Buddha, and that it is more likely that Buddhism influenced Samkhya, rather than the other way around. Also, it is difficult for me to take the position that 'early' buddhism was much closer to Samkhya than later Buddhism. While you can argue that the Abhidhamma didn't get solidified until around 300 or 400 years after the Buddha, it is doubtful to me that such major changes occurred in regard to the 'Self being the passive Observer'. If you want to argue Abhidhamma, then I would say I'm not qualified & I'm not so sure anybody on this board is either, even if they feel otherwise.
Anyway, I still find Frauwallner's position to be strange for the reasons I already mentioned. Once again, Samkhya did not exist as a distinct philosophy until well after the Buddha's time. For this reason I can't follow the argument that the Buddhist position changed over time, as there was no prevalent Samkhya philosophy at the time of the earliest Buddhists. Sure, the roots of Samkhya go way back, as my link attested, but it was only in its early formative period during that period.
_/\_
metta
You see, there is a dfference. Frauwallner and Wikipedia make the assertion that the Buddha was influenced by Samkyha thought, wether formulized as a distinct philosphy or not, not only that the first person of samkyha linage is contemporary with the Buddha. When do you suggest Buddhism became a "distinct" philosophy?
Regards
_/\_
metta
regards
Do keep in mind that I don't know for sure & that you may possibly find such implications somewhere. I've been wrong before, & I'll be wrong again. I just don't think that's very likely in this instance.
_/\_
metta
Of further interest Warder writes:
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Interesting. I am unfamiliar with the term 'shramana' & it's significance. Do you have any links?
_/\_
metta
That applies to all of us I guess, I keep it in mind but it is good to be mentioned sometimes.
I found the following, that I instinctivly rate as Buddha`s rejection of the samkyha view of a self:
Thus the town named after Kapila rejoiced with its surrounding territory at the prosperous birth of the prince. (23)
These lines are from the Buddha-Carita, a 'biography' of the Buddha, written during the reign of the potentate Kanishka and therefore lst-2nd century. This same document tells of the apprenticeship of the Boddhisattva, and how he visited the hermitage of Arada, another adept of the Sankhya lineage. The Buddha-to-be is supposed to have repudiated Arada with these words:
I have listened to this doctrine of yours, which grows more subtle and auspicious in its
successive stages, but I consider it not to lead to final beatitude, since the 'knower of the field' is
not abandoned. (24)
Thus he was not satisfied on learning the doctrine of Arada and, discerning that it was incomplete,
he turned away from there. (25)
The above passages along with others indicate that the Buddha studied Sankhya philosophy and that his own view is in fact a development from a Sankhya base. And indeed the Sankhya found in the Atreya Tantra, contains notable passages of what could be anti-Buddhist critique. (27)
Full article
regards
thanks for that quote. I was not aware of it.
_/\_
metta
78. `The body-knower (the soul) which is unembodied, must be either knowing or unknowing; if it is knowing, there must be some object to be known, and if there is this object, it is not liberated.
79. `Or if the soul is declared to be unknowing, then of what use to you is this imagined soul? Even without such a soul, the existence of the absence of knowledge is notorious as, for instance, in a log of wood or a wall.
80. `And since each successive abandonment is held to be still accompanied by qualities, I maintain that the absolute attainment of our end can only be found in the abandonment of everything.'
81. Thus did he remain unsatisfied after he had heard the doctrine of Aràóa; then having decided it to be incomplete, he turned away.
and finally, a chapter that deals with the Buddhas enlightenment (XIV):
Then the Buddha, mounted on a throne, up in the air to the height of seven palm-trees, addressed all those Nirmità Bodhisattvàþ, illumining their minds,
72. `Ho! ho! listen ye to the words of me who have now attained perfect knowledge; everything is achieved by meritorious works, therefore as long as existence lasts acquire merit.
73. `Since I ever acted as liberal, pure-hearted, patient, skilful, devoted to meditation and wisdom, Þ by these meritorious works I became a Bodhisattva.
74. `After accomplishing in due order the entire round of the preliminaries of perfect wisdom, Þ I have now attained that highest wisdom and I am become the All-wise Arhat and Jina.
75. `My aspiration is thus fulfilled; this birth of mine has borne its fruit; the blessed and immortal knowledge which was attained by former Buddhas, is now mine.
76. `As they through the good Law achieved the welfare of all beings, so also have I; all my sins are abolished, I am the destroyer of all pains.
77. `Possessing a soul now of perfect purity, I urge all living beings to seek the abolition of worldly existence through the lamps of the Law.' Having worshipped him as he thus addressed them, those sons of the Jinas disappeared.
PS:I am not an expert on that piece of literature, I just started to read it recently.
Do we have evidence that they all have a common root and later drifted apart and the lokayatas, eg. gave up the concept rebirth? Or is it sure that for instance, the lokayatas never assumend such concepts to be valid? I mean, are they documented to have sprung off in the same region and was the language the early philosophers of the schools equal ? Or in other words, is that category solely based on ideas and characterisics of the followers or are certain links found that shows them to split more and more over the time?
Regards
There is enough stuff on the Internet to give you a start. This site isn't bad.
http://www.answers.com/topic/shramana
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Well, we know there was a shramana tradition, but perish the thought of elaborating on the pesky details! According to Warder "the ultimate origins of the shramana movment are obscure." However, it may have been centered in the Vrji Republic.
The shramana culture or paideia had teachers who sought and tried to convert pupils. Some established communities called samgha which were outside of the cities and their laws. They also established codes of discipline.
In general the shramanas believed in metempsychosis or transmigration. Some accepted the notion of past lives. By what I can read between the lines their religious principle was more towards the idea of 'natural religion' as opposed to 'revealed religion' (Vedas, Judaism, etc.). For example, the Lokayata which Warder says originally meant "natural science" was materialisitic or the same, an empirical school.
Lokayata asserted complete freedom, the free will, and were laisser-faire (yadrcchavada). According to Warder, they believed "everything happens through the spontaneous actions of nature." The Lokayata rejected moral causation insofar as all actions and experiences are spontaneous and indeterminate being agent less. Hence, they didn't accept the notion of atman or metempsychosis. The goal of life is happiness by means of pleasuring the senses. It strikes me to be like the school of Epicurus of Samos (341–270 B.C.) who was an atomistic materialistic and a qualitative hedonist (meaning sweet).
Love ya'll,
Bobby
We can deduce some implicit critqiue of them by the Buddha, e.g.the assertion that pleasuring the senses would lead to happyness. Interestingly,how they could assume that everything happens thruough "spontaneous actions of nature." and then asserted free will. I find that to be self defeating. It obviously was a school ultimate hostile towards metaphysics, therefore it was only consequent they ended up in a "eat as much as you like and how long you can"-kind of philosophy. I think it`s safe to say that they mistook the self for the body, therefore, deducing everything as ultimate real what they perceive thru their senses.
I saw in the Lokayata more of Epicurus who was quite popular with the Romans. He firmly believed that present sensations are sufficient to determine "that which needs confirmation and that which is obscure." I find this interesting. We can imagine that he might consider the five khandhas to be unobscure whereas the self is most obscure which cannot be confirmed by the senses. Self is, therefore, nonsense. I wonder how much of this kind of thought has settled into the anatta debate, which is Lokayata?
Corresponding with what I believe to be Lokayata thought, Epicurus also held that "the whole of being consists of bodies (somata) and space (kenon)." This corresponds, generally, with the Buddhist treatment of the khandha theory which in a nutshell has to do with gross or subtle sensory perceptions.
Since the Buddha rejected the khandhas as being final and not the self (anattâ), it is easy to see that the Buddha placed little or no credence in the Lokayata doctrine. We know from scriptural evidence that the Buddha said of the khandhas, na meso attâ (that is not my self). This would mean that the Buddha didn't take the khandhas or material existence as the referent.
Epicurus also holds, as I believe the Lokayata did, that beyond sensory determinate being (i.e., composite existence), there is nothing that exists. In contrast to this, the Buddha's position is completely different. His position is clearly transcendent (pâram = amatam nibbanam) which puts his dhamma outside of materialism and natural science.
Of the other sramana school, the Ajivaka, meaning way of life (âjiva), which was led by Goshala, it appears to be fatalistic is some respects insofar as Ajivaka believed that all beings in samsara eventually come to final peace or rest (samsarasuddhi = purified samsara). As a praxis they resorted to 'inaction' (akriya) since any action (karma) is likely to produce negative results. They also believed that the soul was dimensional, that it possessed size and color.
What is valuable for Buddhists about the non-Buddhist sramana schools is that by understanding their philosophies it is possible to get a better idea of where Buddhism stands with regard to attâ and other important ideas.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
That reminds me of the still today existent distinction between forest and city monastry in Thailand, that i recently read about. The retreat from the cities is is in line with the general rejection of what was seen as establishment. With reagards to our discussion of anatta, we could perhaps shift the focus now on the idea of metempsychosis. I believe that a closer look on that could be also fruitful to the debate.
regards.
I totally agree. That`s a reason I looked after samhkya and it turned out to be fruitful to my understanding of where the Buddha was coming from. I perceive a somewhat almost pawlow reflex from some Buddhists, when about general Ideas in India is talked. I consider that to be an artifical need to seperate or distinguish buddhist from non-buddhist. Personally, I am not comfortable with that, this is not my understanding of ancient Indian spirit of tolerance that enabled such a thing as Buddhism to come to existance at all. People might say what they want, they owe their faith to Indian sages. I have respect for them and examining their ideas helps me both to understand Buddhism better, what has been coorporated as well as rejected in Buddhism.
regards
The failure to understand the various schools in which Buddhism marketed its own dhamma in a kind of spiritual competition, could end up with Buddhists advocating positions, for example, as espoused by Ajnana/a-gnostic (one of the main shramana schools along with Bauddha). I offer as an example, Batchelor's view of Buddhism as expressed in his book, Buddhism Without Beliefs in which agnosticism seems to be the predominate theme.
An opinion of mine, I have to say that agnosticism has no place in Buddhism. Those who are its champions would do well to pause and study more. Overall, Ajnana is not interested in pursuing the proper and absolute end of suffering as the Buddha did.
Turning to the subject of the agnostics, i.e., the Ajnanavada, Warder indicates that they were the most scrupulous of all in their devotion to ethical principles such as not taking a life. They were considered to be in their philosophy 'non-extremeists' (anekânta = equipollence) much like the popular Buddhist idea of the middle way as falling between extremes. They seemed to be skeptical, too, wishing to avoid debate. Warder says they developed a unique system of "systematic evasion" (he elaborates no more than this). They refused to speculate about a soul since disputes arising from it lead to conflicting judgments. In this respect this school resembles Greek Skepticism (pyrrhonism). Like the Greek Skeptics they aimed for quietude.
If we compare some of Batchelor's implications, which are contained in his book, with what I've briefly discussed about Ajnana, he moves closer to it than to Buddhism. Buddhists most shocked by Batchelor's book are the Theravadins. I agree with them on most every point.
So it pays to study the past—especially the other shramana schools with which the Buddha had to compete.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
While I do see some value in popular books trying to transmit the dhamma to a broader user base, I see there also lies a danger. If basic tenets get distorted, it is harmful. As an aside, my brains might not be the brightest tool under this moon, but authors such as stephen bachelor or steve hagen barely produced material worth to discuss in 202. When I read Hagen some years ago, (Buddhismus kurz und bündig), I could not believe that such a butchering of logic could have been such a success. I really was disapointed, he seems to have heard "the art of listening/seeing" phrase somewhere and began to toot into that horn. just look and see! over and over again.
While i do not have problems per se with such works, i start to have problems when they are presentet as genuine buddhist doctrine. I admit that I also tend to get allergic against the using of the phrase undogmatic, there is of course dogmatic in different buddhist tradition. The results of such presentation is indeed more a laissez-faire than anything else. Usually, all things are justified with turning of the wheel and middle way, both terms of which I think are not free to use when one wants but instead, they indicate specific notions and changes within buddhism over time.
Frankly, when I read phrases such as "Buddhism is just see. That is all". Or the Buddha is not one you try to get something from, I get both frustrated and ashamed. Frustrated because it robs all religous atmosphere out of Buddhism, ashamed because implictly, many asian buddhists seem to be wrong when they pray to be reborn in time of matreya, for instance. I find Hagens book for instance to be a collection of errors and beyond chutzpah. I would not be so opposed to it, where it not it written in a way that implies thats buddhism, rather than some very questionable interpretation of it.
For those new to either Buddhism in general or Zen Buddhism, either author proves more confusing for the struggling beginner than reading straight Suttas or Huang-po's sermons. Tricycle is also just as confusing with articles on meditation which tend to be the author's invention. And then I become greatly suspicious of it all when the goal of meditation becomes silence. Silence as an end-state is not mentioned in the Suttas which deal with meditation specifically. Quietude is really the end-state of Skepticism in which one withdraws, so to speak, from all semantic battles! And I think all discussants would unanimously agree that quietude is not the end. It is only the beginning of meditation—the first steps of the spiritual baby.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
In fact, the more we delve into the religious milieu of early Buddhism, studying, for example, Ajnana and Ajivika, the better we are able to detect non-buddhist traits which have been introducted into Buddhism such as, for example, agnosticism. All this, by the way, is under the rubric of 'accomodationism'.
Turning to Zen, it has become like a big stew pot into which anything can be thrown and still be called Zen Buddhism even though its teachers and practitioners have probably read not more that a half dozen Sutras—and carelessly. Perish the thought that the T'ang Dynasty Zen master, Tsung-mi, read the entire Buddhist canon.
What is parlous in all this, if we continue to be ignorant of the religious milieu in which the lotus of Buddhism flowered, is that Buddhism will not be Buddhism. It may become a hodgepodge of Ajivka-Taoism with the evasive framework of Ajnana coupled up to the old nag of Skepticism. Set in our own milieu, it may add the mantle of 'scientism' to its older garments in the errant belief that science is infallible when, paradoxically, it admits that it must be falsifiable to be true!
We must, therefore, be vigilant. This thread helps. These discussions have significant value, IMO, at the least for the general public who are interested in Buddhism (as for the Buddhologists, let them argue over the meaning of 'dipa' 'till the cows come home).
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Now- one can see with a little research that Shin Buddhism came to Japan through China and that its current incarnation in both Japan and North America simply reflects the religious development of the Dharma through many centuries of change, cultiral influences and so forth.
This does raise more questions, at least for me. Modern Shin and Zen scholars will sometimes argue that the old Pali canon of suttas is unreliable because it was written by "unenlightened" writers with their own agenda, while Theravadan monks can argue that the latter Mahayana Sutras came centuries after the historical Buddha and that they are therefore interpolations that cloud the "true dhamma". I am not wise enough to resolve such a debate, so for me what I have done is essentially taken what seems to work best from both ahd live my life thusly. I stick to the basics (4 Noble Truths, 3 Marks of Existance, etc), I chant in Temple, and when I meditate I tend to follow the Soto Zen model that was taught by Dogen in Japan.
Zen (Chan) was of course influenced by Daoism, which I cannot say is really a bad thing as I have much respect for Lao Tsu and his teachings in the Tao Te Ching.
I'd be curious to know if anyone else has similar concerns, thoughts, and so forth.
I have noticed this. You appear stuck on Taoism and no-naming, which, to me, convolutes the understanding of Buddhism you are presenting.
To me, you statement above is exceptionally ignorant. However, in Pali, the word 'ignorance' is literally 'not-knowing'. The Pali canon is exceptionally consistent and very repetitive. The only way you can overcome your mind's 'not-knowing' is to read the Pali suttas yourself (rather than form views from others).
Its natural our insight is obscured and we cannot see the differences between the various spiritual traditions. This is normal and often caused by being stuck on unified consciousness (rather than seeing the inherent characteristics of phenomena & reality).
The repedative nature of the Pali Suttas (I own all three volumes published by Wisdom publications...they are I must admit more then a bit of a read) hardly makes them authentic. The Bible has the words "Thus sayeth the Lord" more then 3,000 times...hardly what I would call compelling evidence that it is true...agreed?
-Gassho.
You yourself made authenticity an issue the second you decided to rely entirely on a book.
Words, no matter how persuasive or pretty cannot ever contain truth. Words can only ever point towards truth or away from it.
Your first step is good, can you match it with a better one?
-Gassho
We are all in agreement here I believe. Implementation of the Buddha's teachings requires action...but it helps if ones actions are not based on unhealthy attachments to the written word...then we start to sound like Christian fundamentalists.
You started it brother, by stating Theravadins could learn from the 'nothingness' philosophised in the Heart Sutta. If you did not transgress sectarian boundaries with your fundamentalism, I would not have responded to your posts. Only you sounded like a fundamentalist rather than 'we'. In fact, your advice about Hell on the other thread was....mmm
Greetings D. Dhatu,
You have not responded to my posts.
You have reacted to my posts, which you'll agree is very different.
Your belief that one can only understand emptiness from the suttas of the Pali canon illustrates your own unhealthy attachment to them. Words are like stones that allow you to have a place to put your feet when crossing a river...you seem to think there is wisdom in picking up the stones and carrying them with you.
As long as you persist in such a course then I repeat, you will find yourself locked in the Hell with no doors. As one small bodhisattva I am already doing my best to help you to get out but you seem intent on staying. How is that working out for you?
Note: I don't remember ever saying that Theravadan Buddhists should bow down and listen to the Heart Sutra...however if I did then by all means quote from the post where I did in fact say that and I will in tern bow to your superior teaching and call you Sensei.
The fox curses the grapes, telling himself they are sour.
The Buddha taught using words. Many found liberation simply through listening to the Buddha speak, and many have found liberation by practicing what the Buddha taught through words.
.
....more so...what ignorance to regard 'words' as 'hell'...
...help yourself friend...
There was only one "school" of the Buddha's teachings. This is clear when one studies the Nikayas. Other schools have broken away through divergence from the Buddha's teachings.
Funny that you might say that, considering that the breakaway schools of Mahayana and Vajryayana, even by their very names, claim to be superior to what they call the Hinayana.
Not all of us.
The important point that you are ignoring is that the teachings of the Buddha are exceptionally consistent. These consistencies are repeated many times in the suttas as well.
I find them to be quite enjoyable both to read, and to study deeply.
There is a huge difference between pointing to the repetition of the empty statement "Thus sayeth the Lord" 3000 times (Repetitive Appeal to Purported Authority), and pointing to the same teaching(s) being consistently presented by the same person and many of his followers in many different contexts, using various analogies, coming from different angles, and ending up in the same place, using the same words.
Good reason to refrain from blindly criticizing those who have taken the time and effort to study and sort out the Buddha's own teachings from those that have been added into "Buddhism" by those who divert from His teachings.
:crazy:
Responding well doesn't just mean being right.
....and 100% blind to self-criticism.
Your personal attacks are off-topic and irrelevant, and lend nothing but useless bile to the discussion.
Egotism at work. :cool:
So how is it, Lincoln, that you ignore without comment such outright personal attacks as the above, in light of the quibbling you present here?
You have now sent me two PMs containing personal attacks. Please cease and desist.
If that was useless bile, then there was plenty of it in the discussion to begin with.