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.
1) It is common sense to assume that there is a difference of degree in terms of accuracy/authenticity that is in line with the duration since the Buddha's time. Older=more accurate and authentic.
2) There is a difference of kind between what the Buddha taught in his life and what it is said the Buddha taught once he was dead.
There is no contradiction.
This allows for the possibility that some texts are more accurate that others.
Of course! Thank you. Some texts are more accurate no text can be 100% accurate. QED.
But the point is moot. You're restated your original, extreme claim.
I categorically have not. You are mistaken. Here is the original claim you msitakenly thought contain a contraidtcion:
A:Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen
B:Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's ...
C: for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
And you've also repeatedly expressed an extreme skepticism that makes all texts the same. All texts are an "aeon" or "eternity" from the Buddha.
I reject all texts as authentic/accurate/representation in anything but a suggestive sense. The newwer a text is the less a/a/r I consider it.
Again, no contardiction. I can wrap it up a million ways for you ren, there is no contradiction. You made a mistake. I am sure you wont admit that.
If you're going to dismiss all suttas and sutras, then you have no way of supporting claims about what the Buddha taught.
I know! What to do! Ahhh... luckily the Buddha tells us. Don't believe anything that you do not know for yourself. I even question that claim, as so I should:)
Perhaps you believe in dharma because you have been indoctrinated, I believe in it because I cannot doubt it, after years of trying.
Please drop the personal comments.
Please stop being bitter, belligerent and unfriendly then:)
1) It is common sense to assume that there is a difference of degree in terms of accuracy/authenticity that is in line with the duration since the Buddha's time. Older=more accurate and authentic.
In general, yes. It may not be true is specific cases.
I categorically have not. You are mistaken. Here is the original claim you msitakenly thought contain a contraidtcion:
A:Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen
B:Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's ...
C: for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
In this form, it is contradictory. Equating one week with eternity contradicts the idea that a sutta written one week after the Buddha died is more reliable than one written fifty years later. You may mean something other than what you are saying, but I can only go with what you say.
Remember how I said that a day after his death is closer than last week. That's the difference of degree. But that all changes when you think about the stuff the Buddha actually taught in his life (which we don't and cant know). That is a difference kind of information.
In legal terms you might say its a distinction between hearsay and direct testemony:)
In this form, it is contradictory. Equating one week with eternity contradicts the idea that a sutta written one week after the Buddha died is more reliable than one written fifty years later.
I hope if you can understand the above distinction you will see your mistake:)
You may mean something other than what you are saying, but I can only go with what you say.
Remember how I said that a day after his death is closer than last week. That's the difference of degree. But that all changes when you think about the stuff the Buddha actually taught in his life (which we don't and cant know). That is a difference kind of information.
In legal terms you might say its a distinction between hearsay and direct testemony:)
If we don't and can't know what the Buddha taught, then we have nothing on which to base claims about the Buddha's teaching. Yet in other places, you've made it pretty clear that you believe you know what the Buddha taught. This is just a restatement of previous statements. It does nothing to resolve the contradiction.
If we know nothing about the buddhas teaching then we are starting from scratch and there may as well not have been buddha. So you might as well call yourself a Matist or Jeffreyist as a buddhist.
I think Rengalasap pointing out to you is that you express (whether you really have such I don't know) so much skepticism that its like you are saying that Mahayana is total crap but that Pali Canon is also like 50% false. So you pick out the 50% of the Pali Canon that you agree with and call that Buddhas true teaching.
If we don't and can't know what the Buddha taught, then we have nothing on which to base claims about the Buddha's teaching. Yet in other places, you've made it pretty clear that you believe you know what the Buddha taught. This is just a restatement of previous statements. It does nothing to resolve the contradiction.
No! LOL I think ou are trying to wind me up here? I just dont get how you see.
You know I was listening to a podcast last weekend about how when our beliefs are challenges we become less rational (FDR Bomb in the Mind) and I thought, I witness this lots. I just don't see how you can't see.
Again:
We do not know what the Buddha taught exactly.
We only have the suttras as guides and suggestions.
We must choose which of the suttras we agree with based on our own reasons.
When I read the texts much of it (core dharma) I agree with totally, there is much I hold certain.
Much of it I don't believe the buddha taught because, to me, its just mystical mumbo jumbo nonsesne, just like all the other supernatural religions.
Some of Buddhism is bunkum and claptrap, some of it is about as close as it gets to divine to me:)
You know I was listening to a podcast last weekend about how when our beliefs are challenges we become less rational (FDR Bomb in the Mind) and I thought, I witness this lots. I just don't see how you can't see.
This is a vague generalization. It's rather different from your previous statements that you dismiss all suttas and that we can't and don't know what the Buddha taught. It's vague enough that people with many different viewpoints can agree with it, but too vague to be a support for claims about the Buddha actually taught.
We only have the suttras as guides and suggestions.
The Agamas and Nikayas are rather specific about what the Buddha taught. You personally can take them as just guides and suggestions, but it doesn't logically follow that that's all they are.
We must choose which of the suttras we agree with based on our own reasons.
Choosing which sutras you agree with is very different from making claims about what the Buddha taught. The issue is not what you choose to believe, but the contradiction inherent in your attempts to support your claims about what the Buddha believed.
this is just speculation on my part, but the more I learn about the Buddha, the more it seems like he was a very subtle and pragmatic guy.
In his time, rebirth was widely accepted, and so was the caste structure of society.
For example, people who were believed to be favorites of the lord Brahma, the Brahmins, enjoyed elevated status and privilege.
From what I've heard so far, the Buddha did not directly confront the issue of caste, but instead redefined what a Brahmin was so that it would be applicable to everyone.
Also, it took time and persistent pleading on the part of Ananda and the community of women before the Buddha allowed women into the order. I don't think the Buddha was sexist in any way, he was just trying to work with the commonly held beliefs of his time.
The Buddha did not directly deny the idea of rebirth, but I think the implications of anatta, impermanence, and dependent origination subtly cripple the idea. To me, it seems that the Buddha tolerated and worked with the commonly held views on rebirth, like he tolerated and worked with other views of the time.
This is a vague generalization. It's rather different from your previous statements that you dismiss all suttas and that we can't and don't know what the Buddha taught. It's vague enough that people with many different viewpoints can agree with it, but too vague to be a support for claims about the Buddha actually taught.
We dont even know if he exited and its no dioffernt from my previous view. Its very lame to keep telling me im saying thinsg im not and then lacking the ability to back it up.
The Agamas and Nikayas are rather specific about what the Buddha taught.
They might be 100% fake. I don't think they are, but still, they are no authority to me:) If you place authority in them that's your call.
You personally can take them as just guides and suggestions, but it doesn't logically follow that that's al they are.
Do you know what logically means?
I am saying they are guides to me, if you want to take them as unquestionable scripture thats fine. But dont be dogmatic to otehrs about them as you so often are.
ad Hominem
Choosing which sutras you agree with is very different from making claims about what the Buddha taught.
Reject them all and then see which cannot be doubted. there is no cherry picking on my part.
Have you ever tried to doubt the suttas and dharma? Dismantle them intellectually and insightfully. Test them? Prove them?
We must choose which of the suttras we agree with based on our own reasons.
I suggest you do exactly the opposite - don't be selective otherwise you just reinforce your personal opinions, rather than really understanding what these texts are saying.
To me, it seems that the Buddha tolerated and worked with the commonly held views on rebirth, like he tolerated and worked with other views of the time.
So an enlightened being gave misleading information? Hmmm.
I suggest you do exactly the opposite - don't be selective otherwise you just reinforce your personal opinions, rather than really understanding what these texts are saying.
P
I reject them all outright and any that contain principles that I cannot doubt I will hold as certain. This is exactly what I think the buddha expalins to the kalamas and others.
For example, I cannot doubt that ignorance of reality is the prime cause of suffering. Whereas I can doubt that ignorance causes rebirth in the realms of Mumbo and Jumbo:)
So an enlightened being gave misleading information? Hmmm.
P
I don't think the Buddha mislead anyone, but I do think he worked with the ideas people already had about the world, and gently lead them to his understanding.
If anyone knows a sutta reference I could look at where the Buddha discusses exactly what is reborn, I would appreciate it.
I have seen in Mahayana schools the idea of a very subtle consciousness, a storehouse consciousness, that carries on from life to life. However, I have not able to find this idea in the pali sources.
So an enlightened being gave misleading information? Hmmm.
P
The more you entertain the whole rebirth view the more you cling to self and future being. The Buddha has clearly stated in suttas that rebirth view is not a factor of the path to enlightenment.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
If you actively believe in rebirth as truth without experience, this is clinging to a view.
If you actively dis-believe in rebirth as truth without experience, this is clinging to a view.
The only right view approach to this dilemma is to understand how the "conceptual" idea of rebirth is explained, and not to have either attachment or aversion to this concept. Let your own direct experience, your own realization, clue you in when you progress down the path. Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and creating your own dukkha arguing over that which will never gain a consensus amongst all Buddhists.
Do not quote texts. Stop quoting texts. These texts are not accepted by all Buddhists, whatever their source, as each follows their own guides. Speculating about rebirth is not conducive to awakening.
Remaining in a debate without ever becoming the wiser is a mark of Ego, of Self. Each must find the wisdom to be able to say, to even think, "I don't know", and to let it go.
I reject them all outright and any that contain principles that I cannot doubt I will hold as certain. This is exactly what I think the buddha expalins to the kalamas and others.
For example, I cannot doubt that ignorance of reality is the prime cause of suffering. Whereas I can doubt that ignorance causes rebirth in the realms of Mumbo and Jumbo:)
Do you see what I am saying?:)
In reading through this thread, there seems to be a major disconnect going on.
There appears to be three main "tests" or "factors" that MatSalted uses to judge a sutta.
(1) The age of said text in proximity with the Buddha's death
(2) The degree to which a text squares with his personal sensibilities and beliefs.
(3) The degree to which all suttas should be received skeptically, using #1 and #2 as partial assessment criteria.
These criteria are more than a little bit problematic. One of the problems of logic here is the fact that these vectors do not and cannot intersect in any meaningful or consistent way. All the suttas in the form we have today were scribed post mortem of the Buddha, so all of them fail test #1 no matter if the context of the story was pre or post the Buddha's death, because they all had an equal opportunity to be forged or corrupted by others. The teachings of the Buddha were maintained in numerous oral traditions and done so with tremendous reverence to maintain their accuracy. They were captured in stone tablets, banana leaves, anything they could possibly be captured on, but they were not formally collected, sorted through, and thoroughly documented and cataloged until many, many years after the death of the Buddha. So what are we to do with a sutta in the Digha Nikaya that describes the death of the Buddha? Obviously a man cannot document his own funeral, so are we to be skeptical merely because obviously it does not come from the Buddha himself, but like so many, they come from Ananda's POV? At what point do we start to rank the authenticity of a sutta due to which arahant happened to be the author?
There is one sutta in the Majjhima that was taught by a woman (Dhammadina), and at the end of her teaching, the Buddha jumps in to remark that this was exactly the way he would have taught the lesson! Because this sutta was taught while the Buddha was alive, should it weigh more than suttas taught by an arahant after the Buddha's death? Or conversely, a skeptic might want to believe that the Buddha's "seal of approval" for Dhammadina's sermon must have been some rogue monk's addition to the text after the fact. Such remarks require a rather cynical set of faith statements that are not very helpful at all.
Consider that there are some who believe all references to sammatha (as opposed to vipassana) meditation as well as all things related to the jhanas were "later corruptions" and of course, most of those teachings must then have been placed into the Buddhas mouth directly! So it seems that even those things that allegedly came out the Buddha's mouth while he was alive are suspect if one is to approach the dhamma as a skeptic.
So assessment criteria #1 in particular does not and cannot make any sense as a cogent criteria from a scholarly standpoint, by merit of direct historical analysis.
Assessment criteria #2 is very dangerous, and I do not recommend this approach at all. Of course, we are not to blindly believe in anything that the Buddha said, but consider that this teaching also comes from the tradition of what the Buddha taught in the suttas, of which we are now supposed to receive skeptically as a priori reasoning? Bollocks! You cannot use one teaching as authoritative to then cast doubt on the very same greater body of teachings! It is illogical. It leads to a person cherry picking texts to salve their own ego.
I offer this with loving kindness, humility, and gentleness. Over two decades of practice and study with dhamma, I find there are more and more layers to the ego, so there is nothing being said here that is spoken outside of this direct awareness of the many beliefs I have held and skepticisms I have coddled as "Buddhist hypotheses" in my past...and have slowly learned to let go of this nonsense...much to my own benefit I might add. May I continue to grow in compassion and develop through insight!
I am not suggesting that anyone accept a teaching just because of what was said in a sutta. Of course not. The suttas are not "scriptures" for the Buddhist, but instead are the well-documented teachings of the Buddha; teachings that were maintained with tremendous reverence by so many thousands of monks over centuries. It is not a good idea for a 21st century American like myself to start cherry-picking suttas to find nuggets that agree with my sensibilities or my academic sense of context. The concept of following buddha dhamma is simple. (1) Buddha, (2) Dhamma, (3) Sangha. The teachings are all there in the Pali Canon if we are wise enough to heed them. They have been elaborated upon by many teachers in the emerging Mahayana traditions, through many cultures, and many languages. It is all quite wonderful to behold, and it is best read with humility for the wisdom they offer. It is clear that any good Zen teacher bases their teachings on the Pali Canon. They teach the 4NT, the 8FP, Dependent Origination, No-Self, Impermanence, Emptiness, etc. The teachings methods differ, and those different teaching methods are highly useful for specific students at specific points in time, by merit of their successful outcomes! Fundamentalism is never helpful, be it a Theravada form or a Zen form....where people from the Midwest are found confusing Asian collectivist sensibilities for authentic Buddhism. It is best to approach the dhamma from where you stand right here, and right now. Warts and all.
There appears to be three main "tests" or "factors" that MatSalted uses to judge a sutta.
No, I reject them all as anything but approximations:) Earlier texts I assume to be closer, but not close enough for the kind of certainty and authority that some ascribe to them:)
(2) The degree to which a text squares with his personal sensibilities and beliefs.
Apart from on doubt I would disagree. I read the buddha as a skeptic, a huge one, and this probably taints my view, but I am happy to reject that claim too:)
I am interested in Dharma not doctrine:) I am interested in what the buddha discovered and taught in his live time, not what was written down much much later.
All the suttas in the form we have today were scribed post mortem of the Buddha, so all of them fail test #1 no matter if the context of the story was pre or post the Buddha's death, because they all had an equal opportunity to be forged or corrupted by others.
yep, hence its best to reject them all as authentic and use them rather as guidelines, I believe.
The teachings of the Buddha were maintained in numerous oral traditions and done so with tremendous reverence to maintain their accuracy.
Can you give me a percentage accuracy you would assume they would be using this method after 500 years, 1500 miles and many dilects?
let alone the fact there are tens of megabytes of information in the pali cannon alone. I just find it absurd to assume this can be even close to accurate.
So what are we to do with a sutta in the Digha Nikaya that describes the death of the Buddha?
Read it and try to see what is Dharma and what is not:)
Obviously a man cannot document his own funeral, so are we to be skeptical merely because obviously it does not come from the Buddha himself, but like so many, they come from Ananda's POV? At what point do we start to rank the authenticity of a sutta due to which arahant happened to be the author?
Read it and try to see what is Dharma and what is not:)
Such remarks require a rather cynical set of faith statements that are not very helpful at all.
My view is that skepticism is essential not cynical.
The concept of following buddha dhamma is simple. (1) Buddha, (2) Dhamma, (3) Sangha.
I agree. The Three Jeweles contain no suttras, dogmas, doctrines, orthodoxy, school, vehicles etc...
The teachings are all there in the Pali Canon if we are wise enough to heed them.
How do you know there are not teachings that were removed? We see this with all other religions, why not buddhism? We know the teaching were subject to disputes of heresy.
They teach the 4NT, the 8FP, Dependent Origination, No-Self, Impermanence, Emptiness, etc...
I try to reject all of the above, but i cannot. they are absolutely unquestionable to me. They are the dharmic system.
When it comes to rebirth and devas and realms and miracles and superpowers and all that, the same isnt true. I can reject them, doubt them. they crumble easily and moreover do not corroborate with my experience or our scientific understanding of the world.
I have no intention to dispute any views you hold or do not hold. It seems to me there is a clear theme in the language you choose. It seems to me this is more important than what suttas (or sections within suttas) you wish to accept or reject, and of course you are totally free to do as you see fit.
Consider the following examples, which reveal a mindset
"I reject them all [the suttas] as anything but approximations"
"I read the buddha as a skeptic"
"I am interested in Dharma not doctrine"
"its best to reject them all as authentic
"Can you give me a percentage accuracy?"
there are tens of megabytes of information in the pali cannon alone. I just find it absurd to assume this can be even close to accurate.
I read it [the Pali Canon] and try to see what is Dharma and what is not:)
What I would offer to you--and I do this only as something for you to consider and think about--is to understand that from this reader's vantage point, you seem to place a very high value on materialism, and if I dare be so bold, looking at things from a black and white mode of thinking when it comes to what in the suttas is true and what is bunk.
This is not possible! Insight comes from accepting "warts" of reality instead of demanding that it be without them, and more importantly, to progress, we must discard our need for accuracy and perfection in our practice, Such things serve as a major impediment to happiness.
Please know that I felt compelled by compassion to respond to you today because of this.
You say that you accept the four noble truths, but cannot accept other things you read in the suttas, because they do not square with your perspective and experience, which is based on scientific understanding.
But seeking a "percentage of accuracy" of the suttas is not going to be helpful to you, for such a question misses the point of the practice. You are not compelled to believe in anything my friend, so this issue can and should be let go of completely. The seeking mind is always the problem! I am not going to defend the existence of the realms or of devas to you. To be honest with you, I just do not read the suttas with this layer of judgment.
For example, does it matter whether Mara is a literal being, or a figment of the mind? It doesn't ultimately matter, because the mind is where all this reality is created in the first place. The Buddha sitting under the tree was an act of liberation from grasping and delusion. Whether or not Mara was actually, literally tempting the Buddha, or whether the Buddha was just fencing with his own cortical delusions is not materially important here, because liberating the mind was the whole point.
Here is one more small piece of personal experience to share with you. Over the years, I have been rather surprised over the changes of consciousness I have experienced while sitting, and in turn what those changes have done for me in practical terms for my life. Reality is not merely what I can divine through the scientific method, but rather, what happens when my ego molts away and I see the interconnectedness of all beings.
I would suggest that the Buddha's realization of no-self is a more profound claim than the existence of devas. This does not mean devas are "real" in any empirically verifiable way, but it does mean that the mind is incredibly malleable and thus reality is also malleable. Where you are right here; right now...THAT is your reality! However, this reality is typically covered by a massive layer of eye dust. Thus, who am I (or you) to suggest knowledge of what is real and what is unreal? I have already disproved 1000s of precious, closely held ego beliefs thanks to my sitting practice. I am certain there are a few more thousand tricks to uncover. I trust monks claims to have parsed through the issue of re-birth due to the depth of their meditation skill, and I know this is likely because of things I have personally experienced. However, it is very difficult to speak of them because they do not necessarily make any sense to those who have not experienced such things, and of course a lot of what I experience could be yet another tricky layer, so I let go of them with no shortage of humor!
We dont even know if he exited and its no dioffernt from my previous view.
We have pretty good evidence that he existed. Back in the nineteenth century, there was a period of extreme skepticism when a few people questioned the existence of Jesus and the Buddha and a few other religious figures. That was over a hundred years ago. Today serious scholars generally accept their existence.
If a historical figure is mentioned once or twice in Sallust, that would be less documentation for their existence that there is for the Buddha's existence. But nobody would seriously doubt, on that basis, that they existed.
Of course I do. Here's an example of it's correct use:
"You personally can take them as just guides and suggestions, but it doesn't logically follow that that's all they are."
I am saying they are guides to me, if you want to take them as unquestionable scripture thats fine. But dont be dogmatic to otehrs about them as you so often are.
Ad hom in what way? I simply pointed out that your statement that the suttas are just guides and suggestions is fine as a personal stance, but it doesn't logically limit them to being only that. I made no claims about you personally and it was relevant to your statement.
That's both strawman and ad hom. It's a strawman because I've said nothing to indicate that I just accept them. You're attributing an argument to me that I've never made. It's ad hom because (1) what I accept or don't accept is a personal attribute and (2) it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Consider the following examples, which reveal a mindset
Yep:) I think a rational skeptic mindset:)
What I would offer to you--and I do this only as something for you to consider and think about--is to understand that from this reader's vantage point, you seem to place a very high value on materialism, and if I dare be so bold, looking at things from a black and white mode of thinking when it comes to what in the suttas is true and what is bunk.
I am a systems theorist rather than a materialist. It doesnt matter to me if there is "matter" or if this is all a dream, illusion, simulation etc.... the point is that reality is a consistent whole without connection to principles that are supernatural.
Insight comes from accepting "warts" of re
ality
maybe we are aty cross purposes:) i am talking about objetivbe reality not any subjective representation (insight) of that.
so for me, and I imagine you, I see Dharma as all that flows from there three Dharmic Truths of annica, anataman, dukka. This is a perfect system that leads completely into the conditioned experiences of our lives.
for me the "warts" would be the stuff that simply doesn't fit- ie the supernatural/anomalous/inconsistent stuff.
Such things serve as a major impediment to happiness.
I am happy, thanks:)
You say that you accept the four noble truths, but cannot accept other things you read in the suttas, because they do not square with your perspective and experience, which is based on scientific understanding.
Not just science!
reason: Much in the suttras is incompatible with dharma
history: much in the suttras is found previously in hinduism etc
But seeking a "percentage of accuracy" of the suttas is not going to be helpful to you, for such a question misses the point of the practice.
I am not here to practie but to talk about dharma:) The percentage thing was to try to get some grip on how accurate you yourself think the suttras are:)
I am not going to defend the existence of the realms or of devas to you.
Nor could you, even if you wanted. At best you could offer the circular "the texts say it" or the dubious "I have experinced them".
To be honest with you, I just do not read the suttas with this layer of judgment.
to be honest back, I think that's not what the buddha would have wanted:) Why would you just blindly accept anything you read?
For example, does it matter whether Mara is a literal being, or a figment of the mind?
It isnt important to me personally, but in terms of the wider philosopical issues its a very differnt world we live in if it contains magical demonic tempting beings or not:)
It doesn't ultimately matter, because the mind is where all this reality is created in the first place.
I disagree, I think the buddha would too. there is an objective world below the mind and the mind is composed exactly of the arrangement of that world, wther you want to talk neurochemical or skhandas:)
The Buddha sitting under the tree was an act of liberation from grasping and delusion.
I think it was more than that, but yes, thats a part of it. His enlightenment showed not just these petty human things but a wider set of truths that are true of all possible contingent realities.
There was dharma before suffering. Before thoughts.
Here is one more small piece of personal experience to share with you. Over the years, I have been rather surprised over the changes of consciousness I have experienced while sitting, and in turn what those changes have done for me in practical terms for my life. Reality is not merely what I can divine through the scientific method, but rather, what happens when my ego molts away and I see the interconnectedness of all beings.
I see the intercoennectedness of all systems also:)
I would suggest that the Buddha's realization of no-self is a more profound claim than the existence of devas.
I agree totally.
the mind is incredibly malleable and thus reality is also malleable.
I disagree.
Reality is what it is, it is not subject to change from outside.
Where you are right here; right now...THAT is your reality!
That is my subjective reality yes. This moment, this now is all there is for me. It would be very arrogant and foolish of me to assume this is the objective reality.
Thus, who am I (or you) to suggest knowledge of what is real and what is unreal?
I am a philosopher, thats what we do. If you dont want to do that thats fine:)
I trust monks claims to have parsed through the issue of re-birth due to the depth of their meditation skill.
I am very aware of the ability of the mind to delude itself, I assume this is what has happened when people say they have experienced past lives etc.
However, it is very difficult to speak of them because they do not necessarily make any sense to those who have not experienced such things.
That's just emperos new clothes stuff to me:)
Lest not forget the buddha tells us that he has nothing hidden away. i am happy to doubt that he said that, however:)
Please can you point me to some links here. As I understand it there is no historical or archeological evidence the buddha existed. I have looked into this a fair bit over the years.
questioned the existence of Jesus
As with Buddha, there isnt any pertinent evidence from the time of jesus that he existed.
But nobody would seriously doubt, on that basis, that they existed.
um, skeptics would, and should:) How do you feel about Zeus and Quetzecotly?
Yes, you dismiss them as an authority, but you use them as an authority when you want to make a claim about what the Buddha taught.
You're really not getting this point. To recap:
I reject the authority of the suttras and use them as guidelines where I am compelled to accept the self evident core dharma but not all parts at all.
I belive this is the right way to approach them, if you dont, thats fine, but you cannot say I am wrong without being a dogmagtist.
It is certainly more "game" than structured and reasoned argument but mianly its a discussion, my attempt to get it structured failed a few posts back (as so often happens), if you would like to "tidy" it up so we can see where we are I will gladly keep it neat.
But regarding one point above:
>>>How do you feel about Zeus and Quetzecotl?
Is this a useless and unsound straw man argument?
I dont think it is, its the standard "new athiest" argument that calls on the lack of any logical distinction between types.
Can I also stress, as its got lots in the mire here, I am merely defening myself against Rens repeated and unestablished accutasion that I have made contrsdictions, which I still dont think i have and he hasnt shown.
if you can show me I will gladly eat the humble pie etc:)
Well wishes and keep it fun:)
Mat
we need to be carful when getting our logical sniper sights out, not all things are sylogysm and calculus.
For example, if a debate pivots on opinion (ie initial assumptions) then ad hnminem counter arguments may have utility (eg hypocracy).
For one thing they are untestable in any immediate time frame. You have to completely remove ignorance to prove that ignorance is the cause of suffering. So you have to become a buddha to actually prove the four noble truths. Thank you :rolleyes:
Even if you say you are not suffering and that your theory is that being a buddha is a common place everyday thing, wouldn't it also be possible that you had not even realized the first noble truth that there is suffering?
For one thing they are untestable in any immediate time frame. You have to completely remove ignorance to prove that ignorance is the cause of suffering. So you have to become a buddha to actually prove the four noble truths. Thank you :rolleyes:
Ha! love it:)
But I disagree:)
My reason:
You can see why The Four Noble Truths are true simply by understanding at how they emmerge from the Three Marks. I think it gets tricky with the eightfold path, but thats due to my lack of ability rather than any problem with the path or its placement within the dharmic structure. (I tried to start a thread investigating this a few weeks ago but, sadly...)
Another reply:
One might also reply to you that if you understand the 4NT fully then you are a Buddha and thus you know you cannoyt doubt the truths. I do like this "mundane buddhahood" kind of view but I am not sure how well it would work with your point above.
Please can you point me to some links here. As I understand it there is no historical or archeological evidence the buddha existed. I have looked into this a fair bit over the years.
I reject the authority of the suttras and use them as guidelines where I am compelled to accept the self evident core dharma but not all parts at all.
I belive this is the right way to approach them, if you dont, thats fine, but you cannot say I am wrong without being a dogmagtist.
No Matt, you're the one not getting the point. You made a claim about what the Buddha taught, I challenged the claim, and the issue is and always has been your claims about what the Buddha taught. Whether you believe a teaching is scientific or true is irrelevant. What you believe is true has no bearing on what the Buddha believed is true.
I've stated this repeatedly, and you've repeatedly ignored it and tried to bring your and my beliefs into the debate. Whether you or I believe a teaching provides no evidence for whether or not the Buddha believed it.
We can see how Newtonian physics emerged from sir isaac newtons measurements, but it was later proved incomplete.
You are very mistaken in the use of this analogy (or "false analogy" as ren's guide to logic will say).
Newtonian physics works (It still sends us to Uranus).
Dharma works (Its practice makes us happier even if the reality it suggest is false)
So in this level of abstraction they are similar.
But at the more basic levels they are radically different, hence the false analogy.
Newtonian physics doesn't work at the very small levels of the sub-atomic and it doesnt work at the very large levels of the galatic.
However:
The Dharnic truths do work at all levels of reality.
All galaxies are impermanent, interconnected/empty and inevitably negative.
All human experiences are impermanent, interconnected/empty and inevitably negative.
The third mark of existence is not objective but subjective..
I fundamentally disagree and moreover I can prove why this is the case. I tried to do this in a thread 3 weeks ago but it was censored (moved to a dead forum, all threads are imperminent, and thanks to HTML, interconnected:p)
There was dukka before subjectivity. Please dont just disagree with that before being your own light on emmegrce and layers of abstraction and general systems theory!:)
The three marks of existence merely say "we don't like change"
As said above, I fundamentally disagree. I think that that is just ifferutable wrong view there:) I cannot be that strong on rebirth as I am on this point, Dharma is eternal truth, The buddha is said to have used this term directly.
Wow, what a hot-button issue! My apologies for not participating in the ancient text quoting competition-- I'm a total ignorant when it comes to those
Now when I was having breakfast today, a sudden thought came to mind. What if "liberation from rebirth" actually meant to mean "liberation from the idea of rebirth" that, perhaps, was as burning on every Indian's mind as, say, the fear of hell on a Catholic's? During Buddah's time, the idea if rebirth in India was held indisputable and just as accepted as, say, the theory of evolution among Western scientists today. What if Buddah was telling his disciples: "you do these practices I'm teaching you and the burden of the traditional Indian religion is going to fall off your minds and you'll breathe freely". Traditional Indian teachings, of course, include the idea of rebirth. Possibly, it would have been too risky to just say outright that religious dogma of the day was basically nonsense, so Buddah had to resort to hints?
It is only a thought and I obviously cannot prove it. However, I doubt *anything* can be proven about Buddah since he lived well over two millenia ago and the accounts of his life were basically written based on stories told by others about him. However, I can easily imagine that a person of a keen mind, who Buddah probably was, could resort to hints and metaphoras in order to function in a society where he was well ahead of his time...
I am a virgin buddhist, I cannot use anything after the time of the Buddha as evidence, at best it can confirm Dharma.
No Matt, you're the one not getting the point. You made a claim about what the Buddha taught, I challenged the claim, and the issue is and always has been your claims about what the Buddha taught. Whether you believe a teaching is scientific or true is irrelevant. What you believe is true has no bearing on what the Buddha believed is true.
I am sorry Ren, you miss my point. We do not even know if the Buddha lived or was an amalgamation, it is meaningless to talk with the certainity you do about the "what the buddha taught"
My entire enquiry with Buddhism is to try to discover from first principles what the Buddha taught because we cannot know any other way than that it is self evident Dharma.
If you want to have a differnt take on things then me that's fine, i am not trying to convince you of anything. but kindly just ignore me and stay away from my posts and I will yours.
I do not want to fight with you over who has the best middle way. You wont ever convince me unless you have a kind of evidence that simply doesn't exist in this world right now.
I get the feeling you are in some sense trying to defend Buddhism. It doesnt need you to defend it and when you try you become unbuddhist and so do I.
Now when I was having breakfast today, a sudden thought came to mind. What if "liberation from rebirth" actually meant to mean "liberation from the idea of rebirth" that, perhaps, was as burning on every Indian's mind as, say, the fear of hell on a Catholic's?
yes! I agree, you might like some of my stuff on salted.net. i would love to explore this idea more with you:)
During Buddah's time, the idea if rebirth in India was held indisputable and just as accepted as, say, the theory of evolution among Western scientists today. What if Buddah was telling his disciples: "you do these practices I'm teaching you and the burden of the traditional Indian religion is going to fall off your minds and you'll breathe freely".
yes! have a read of the mirror of dharma section in the mahaparinibba suttra with h this possibility in mind. See what I mean?
Traditional Indian teachings, of course, include the idea of rebirth. Possibly, it would have been too risky to just say outright that religious dogma of the day was basically nonsense, so Buddah had to resort to hints?
My view is that it is more likley modified after his death, in the hundreds of years and miles it traveleved before being written down.
It is only a thought and I obviously cannot prove it. However, I doubt *anything* can be proven about Buddah since he lived well over two millenia ago and the accounts of his life were basically written based on stories told by others about him. However, I can easily imagine that a person of a keen mind, who Buddah probably was, could resort to hints and metaphoras in order to function in a society where he was well ahead of his time...
You started your post criticising not being a "sutra scholar," I do think you should start at the beginning, the first sermon, and read your way through with your new perspective as an assumption.
Ask yourself questions like:
Where is rebirth in the four noble truths? in karma? In conditioned causality.
Why doesn't rebirth contradict with imperminance and emptiness and interconnecivity, it seems to, at least intuitively?
If you read Dharma on the assumption of antirebirth (Or as I call "mebirth" as in, its my only life right now..) rather than the traditional assumption of rebirth it comes over might different:)
You know that bit where I asked you to be familiar with abstraction before commenting...?
hmmm:p
There are two ways I can explain this:
One:
Dukka is true of all systems. if those systems are sentient to a sufficient level of emergence then they will experience this dukka as suffering, stress, strain, failed ambitions, sadness, diminishing returns... and so on.
When the bacteria in the pure water is struggling to survive due to lack of nutrients, it is not suffering but it is subject to Dukka.
Suffering is the experience of illusion(emptiness), impermience and the inevitable negative of all finite systems.
Do you really think the immense genius of the buddha a as moral, psycological and philosophical god ultimately boils down to us little individuals and our sadness? I see it as much much bigger than that, I never really get these people who say "Buddhism is just about an end to suffering."
It's almost insulting to the discovery of dharma!:)
This has been a really hard thing for me to get my head around, why Dukka?
I can see why annnica and anataman, they are logically necessary as soon as you have more than one thing.
But why dukka?
I think dukka isnt logically necessary, but it is very close in the tree of emmergence.
To have dukka you need annica and anataman but also your universe needs to contain finite systems. When you have that it follows that all systems will necessarily end in both the temporal (they end in the future and the past) and the structural (they and within the wider structure of interconnected systems) sense.
the moment you add causality to this universe(in our universe its probabalistic causality) you have dependent origination because of annica and anataman.
You dont yet have karma, that comes in when the systems are sufficiently moral/mental. And once you have karma you have all the dharma emerging that the practice of buddhism addresses so well.
If the universe consists of absolutely nothing that would also be dukkha?
No, there would be no universe. No annica, no anataman, no truth, mnpo flase, no meaning, no thing:)
As said above, Dukka comes emmerges when you have finite systems, annica and anataman:)
Am I making sense? if not please say where as I find this very hard to explain:)
I am a virgin buddhist, I cannot use anything after the time of the Buddha as evidence, at best it can confirm Dharma.
Then you have no basis for making claims for what the Buddha believed and taught, other than your own beliefs. No historian or scholar would accept this.
I am sorry Ren, you miss my point. We do not even know if the Buddha lived or was an amalgamation, it is meaningless to talk with the certainity you do about the "what the buddha taught".
The claim about certainty is a straw man. I've have never claimed to know for certain what the Buddha taught and my challenge to your claims doesn't depend on knowing for certain what the Buddha taught. My challenge is based on the fact that there is no reasonable basis for claiming that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth.
Elsewhere, you've made claims about what the Buddha believed and who he was. You have said that you believed that the Buddha didn't believe in or teach rebirth. You have said that you believed that the Buddha was an atheist, a materialist, and a number of other things. There seems to be a contradiction here. When you want to assert your own beliefs, you make claims about who the Buddha was and what he taught. But when I question those claims, you claim that we don't know whether the Buddha existed and that it is meaningless to talk with certainty about what the Buddha taught.
My entire enquiry with Buddhism is to try to discover from first principles what the Buddha taught because we cannot know any other way than that it is self evident Dharma.
We have documentary evidence about what the Buddha taught. It's possible to question the documentation, but you haven't done that except by making vague generalizations that are not capable of supporting your claims.
"Self evident Dharma" is not a reasonable basis for evaluating whether the Buddha believed or taught something. It provides evidence only for what you believe.
I do not want to fight with you over who has the best middle way. You wont ever convince me unless you have a kind of evidence that simply doesn't exist in this world right now.
Straw man. This is not and never has been about who has the best middle way. You've made a number of attempts to bring our beliefs into the debate. You are doing it again. Our beliefs are irrelevant.
I get the feeling you are in some sense trying to defend Buddhism. It doesnt need you to defend it and when you try you become unbuddhist and so do I.
This is both a straw man and an ad hom argument. It's a straw man because there is nothing in the posts I have made in this thread that offers any defence of Buddhism. It's an ad hom argument because (1) it is irrelevant and (2) you're making claims about personal behavior.
Elsewhere, you've made claims about what the Buddha believed and who he was. You have said that you believed that the Buddha didn't believe in or teach rebirth. You have said that you believed that the Buddha was an atheist, a materialist, and a number of other things. There seems to be a contradiction here. When you want to assert your own beliefs, you make claims about who the Buddha was and what he taught. But when I question those claims, you claim that we don't know whether the Buddha existed and that it is meaningless to talk with certainty about what the Buddha taught.
That is my belief, you wont find anywhere where I have said I am certain of it:)
We have documentary evidence about what the Buddha taught. It's possible to question the documentation, but you haven't done that except by making vague generalizations that are not capable of supporting your claims.
"Self evident Dharma" is not a reasonable basis for evaluating whether the Buddha believed or taught something. It provides evidence only for what you believe.
I belive the Three Marks are self evident, I cannot doubt them, I have tried. This is my point:)
The same is not true of rebirth, god, jesus, zeus, majic, fairies and of course, santa.
I see them all as the same kind of belief. Why is your belief in rebirth any stronger than a child's in santa?
Comments
You mean like this?
Again, no it does not:)
Do you agree with these two statements:
1) It is common sense to assume that there is a difference of degree in terms of accuracy/authenticity that is in line with the duration since the Buddha's time. Older=more accurate and authentic.
2) There is a difference of kind between what the Buddha taught in his life and what it is said the Buddha taught once he was dead.
There is no contradiction.
Of course! Thank you. Some texts are more accurate no text can be 100% accurate. QED.
I categorically have not. You are mistaken. Here is the original claim you msitakenly thought contain a contraidtcion:
I reject all texts as authentic/accurate/representation in anything but a suggestive sense. The newwer a text is the less a/a/r I consider it.
Again, no contardiction. I can wrap it up a million ways for you ren, there is no contradiction. You made a mistake. I am sure you wont admit that.
I know! What to do! Ahhh... luckily the Buddha tells us. Don't believe anything that you do not know for yourself. I even question that claim, as so I should:)
Perhaps you believe in dharma because you have been indoctrinated, I believe in it because I cannot doubt it, after years of trying.
Please stop being bitter, belligerent and unfriendly then:)
What do you mean by difference in kind?
In this form, it is contradictory. Equating one week with eternity contradicts the idea that a sutta written one week after the Buddha died is more reliable than one written fifty years later. You may mean something other than what you are saying, but I can only go with what you say.
Ad hom.
I'm not. Please drop the personal comments.
Remember how I said that a day after his death is closer than last week. That's the difference of degree. But that all changes when you think about the stuff the Buddha actually taught in his life (which we don't and cant know). That is a difference kind of information.
In legal terms you might say its a distinction between hearsay and direct testemony:)
I hope if you can understand the above distinction you will see your mistake:)
no i dont.
I think Rengalasap pointing out to you is that you express (whether you really have such I don't know) so much skepticism that its like you are saying that Mahayana is total crap but that Pali Canon is also like 50% false. So you pick out the 50% of the Pali Canon that you agree with and call that Buddhas true teaching.
Thats probably exactly how they invented Mahayana
No! LOL I think ou are trying to wind me up here? I just dont get how you see.
You know I was listening to a podcast last weekend about how when our beliefs are challenges we become less rational (FDR Bomb in the Mind) and I thought, I witness this lots. I just don't see how you can't see.
Again:
We do not know what the Buddha taught exactly.
We only have the suttras as guides and suggestions.
We must choose which of the suttras we agree with based on our own reasons.
When I read the texts much of it (core dharma) I agree with totally, there is much I hold certain.
Much of it I don't believe the buddha taught because, to me, its just mystical mumbo jumbo nonsesne, just like all the other supernatural religions.
Some of Buddhism is bunkum and claptrap, some of it is about as close as it gets to divine to me:)
how about you?
It
This is a vague generalization. It's rather different from your previous statements that you dismiss all suttas and that we can't and don't know what the Buddha taught. It's vague enough that people with many different viewpoints can agree with it, but too vague to be a support for claims about the Buddha actually taught.
The Agamas and Nikayas are rather specific about what the Buddha taught. You personally can take them as just guides and suggestions, but it doesn't logically follow that that's all they are.
Choosing which sutras you agree with is very different from making claims about what the Buddha taught. The issue is not what you choose to believe, but the contradiction inherent in your attempts to support your claims about what the Buddha believed.
this is just speculation on my part, but the more I learn about the Buddha, the more it seems like he was a very subtle and pragmatic guy.
In his time, rebirth was widely accepted, and so was the caste structure of society.
For example, people who were believed to be favorites of the lord Brahma, the Brahmins, enjoyed elevated status and privilege.
From what I've heard so far, the Buddha did not directly confront the issue of caste, but instead redefined what a Brahmin was so that it would be applicable to everyone.
Also, it took time and persistent pleading on the part of Ananda and the community of women before the Buddha allowed women into the order. I don't think the Buddha was sexist in any way, he was just trying to work with the commonly held beliefs of his time.
The Buddha did not directly deny the idea of rebirth, but I think the implications of anatta, impermanence, and dependent origination subtly cripple the idea. To me, it seems that the Buddha tolerated and worked with the commonly held views on rebirth, like he tolerated and worked with other views of the time.
This is just my take on it.
You are;)
We dont even know if he exited and its no dioffernt from my previous view. Its very lame to keep telling me im saying thinsg im not and then lacking the ability to back it up.
They might be 100% fake. I don't think they are, but still, they are no authority to me:) If you place authority in them that's your call.
Do you know what logically means?
I am saying they are guides to me, if you want to take them as unquestionable scripture thats fine. But dont be dogmatic to otehrs about them as you so often are.
ad Hominem
Reject them all and then see which cannot be doubted. there is no cherry picking on my part.
Have you ever tried to doubt the suttas and dharma? Dismantle them intellectually and insightfully. Test them? Prove them?
It seems you just accept them?
I suggest you do exactly the opposite - don't be selective otherwise you just reinforce your personal opinions, rather than really understanding what these texts are saying.
P
So an enlightened being gave misleading information? Hmmm.
P
I reject them all outright and any that contain principles that I cannot doubt I will hold as certain. This is exactly what I think the buddha expalins to the kalamas and others.
For example, I cannot doubt that ignorance of reality is the prime cause of suffering. Whereas I can doubt that ignorance causes rebirth in the realms of Mumbo and Jumbo:)
Do you see what I am saying?:)
I don't think the Buddha mislead anyone, but I do think he worked with the ideas people already had about the world, and gently lead them to his understanding.
I have seen in Mahayana schools the idea of a very subtle consciousness, a storehouse consciousness, that carries on from life to life. However, I have not able to find this idea in the pali sources.
thanks
The more you entertain the whole rebirth view the more you cling to self and future being. The Buddha has clearly stated in suttas that rebirth view is not a factor of the path to enlightenment.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta
I am sure the sutta experts here will refer you to other suttas
I am sure DD will help you with this
In case you haven't read already, I find this text extremely good in explaining the DO as the Buddha explained it in the suttas
That's just what I think, Pearl.
Buddah was a human being and operated under the assumptions of his epoch...
If you actively believe in rebirth as truth without experience, this is clinging to a view.
If you actively dis-believe in rebirth as truth without experience, this is clinging to a view.
The only right view approach to this dilemma is to understand how the "conceptual" idea of rebirth is explained, and not to have either attachment or aversion to this concept. Let your own direct experience, your own realization, clue you in when you progress down the path. Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and creating your own dukkha arguing over that which will never gain a consensus amongst all Buddhists.
Do not quote texts. Stop quoting texts. These texts are not accepted by all Buddhists, whatever their source, as each follows their own guides. Speculating about rebirth is not conducive to awakening.
Remaining in a debate without ever becoming the wiser is a mark of Ego, of Self. Each must find the wisdom to be able to say, to even think, "I don't know", and to let it go.
In reading through this thread, there seems to be a major disconnect going on.
There appears to be three main "tests" or "factors" that MatSalted uses to judge a sutta.
(1) The age of said text in proximity with the Buddha's death
(2) The degree to which a text squares with his personal sensibilities and beliefs.
(3) The degree to which all suttas should be received skeptically, using #1 and #2 as partial assessment criteria.
These criteria are more than a little bit problematic. One of the problems of logic here is the fact that these vectors do not and cannot intersect in any meaningful or consistent way. All the suttas in the form we have today were scribed post mortem of the Buddha, so all of them fail test #1 no matter if the context of the story was pre or post the Buddha's death, because they all had an equal opportunity to be forged or corrupted by others. The teachings of the Buddha were maintained in numerous oral traditions and done so with tremendous reverence to maintain their accuracy. They were captured in stone tablets, banana leaves, anything they could possibly be captured on, but they were not formally collected, sorted through, and thoroughly documented and cataloged until many, many years after the death of the Buddha. So what are we to do with a sutta in the Digha Nikaya that describes the death of the Buddha? Obviously a man cannot document his own funeral, so are we to be skeptical merely because obviously it does not come from the Buddha himself, but like so many, they come from Ananda's POV? At what point do we start to rank the authenticity of a sutta due to which arahant happened to be the author?
There is one sutta in the Majjhima that was taught by a woman (Dhammadina), and at the end of her teaching, the Buddha jumps in to remark that this was exactly the way he would have taught the lesson! Because this sutta was taught while the Buddha was alive, should it weigh more than suttas taught by an arahant after the Buddha's death? Or conversely, a skeptic might want to believe that the Buddha's "seal of approval" for Dhammadina's sermon must have been some rogue monk's addition to the text after the fact. Such remarks require a rather cynical set of faith statements that are not very helpful at all.
Consider that there are some who believe all references to sammatha (as opposed to vipassana) meditation as well as all things related to the jhanas were "later corruptions" and of course, most of those teachings must then have been placed into the Buddhas mouth directly! So it seems that even those things that allegedly came out the Buddha's mouth while he was alive are suspect if one is to approach the dhamma as a skeptic.
So assessment criteria #1 in particular does not and cannot make any sense as a cogent criteria from a scholarly standpoint, by merit of direct historical analysis.
Assessment criteria #2 is very dangerous, and I do not recommend this approach at all. Of course, we are not to blindly believe in anything that the Buddha said, but consider that this teaching also comes from the tradition of what the Buddha taught in the suttas, of which we are now supposed to receive skeptically as a priori reasoning? Bollocks! You cannot use one teaching as authoritative to then cast doubt on the very same greater body of teachings! It is illogical. It leads to a person cherry picking texts to salve their own ego.
I offer this with loving kindness, humility, and gentleness. Over two decades of practice and study with dhamma, I find there are more and more layers to the ego, so there is nothing being said here that is spoken outside of this direct awareness of the many beliefs I have held and skepticisms I have coddled as "Buddhist hypotheses" in my past...and have slowly learned to let go of this nonsense...much to my own benefit I might add. May I continue to grow in compassion and develop through insight!
I am not suggesting that anyone accept a teaching just because of what was said in a sutta. Of course not. The suttas are not "scriptures" for the Buddhist, but instead are the well-documented teachings of the Buddha; teachings that were maintained with tremendous reverence by so many thousands of monks over centuries. It is not a good idea for a 21st century American like myself to start cherry-picking suttas to find nuggets that agree with my sensibilities or my academic sense of context. The concept of following buddha dhamma is simple. (1) Buddha, (2) Dhamma, (3) Sangha. The teachings are all there in the Pali Canon if we are wise enough to heed them. They have been elaborated upon by many teachers in the emerging Mahayana traditions, through many cultures, and many languages. It is all quite wonderful to behold, and it is best read with humility for the wisdom they offer. It is clear that any good Zen teacher bases their teachings on the Pali Canon. They teach the 4NT, the 8FP, Dependent Origination, No-Self, Impermanence, Emptiness, etc. The teachings methods differ, and those different teaching methods are highly useful for specific students at specific points in time, by merit of their successful outcomes! Fundamentalism is never helpful, be it a Theravada form or a Zen form....where people from the Midwest are found confusing Asian collectivist sensibilities for authentic Buddhism. It is best to approach the dhamma from where you stand right here, and right now. Warts and all.
I don't know, I haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other.
Thanks for your post, I read it a couple of times.
No, I reject them all as anything but approximations:) Earlier texts I assume to be closer, but not close enough for the kind of certainty and authority that some ascribe to them:)
Apart from on doubt I would disagree. I read the buddha as a skeptic, a huge one, and this probably taints my view, but I am happy to reject that claim too:)
I am interested in Dharma not doctrine:) I am interested in what the buddha discovered and taught in his live time, not what was written down much much later.
yep, hence its best to reject them all as authentic and use them rather as guidelines, I believe.
Can you give me a percentage accuracy you would assume they would be using this method after 500 years, 1500 miles and many dilects?
let alone the fact there are tens of megabytes of information in the pali cannon alone. I just find it absurd to assume this can be even close to accurate.
Read it and try to see what is Dharma and what is not:)
Read it and try to see what is Dharma and what is not:)
My view is that skepticism is essential not cynical.
I agree. The Three Jeweles contain no suttras, dogmas, doctrines, orthodoxy, school, vehicles etc...
How do you know there are not teachings that were removed? We see this with all other religions, why not buddhism? We know the teaching were subject to disputes of heresy.
I try to reject all of the above, but i cannot. they are absolutely unquestionable to me. They are the dharmic system.
When it comes to rebirth and devas and realms and miracles and superpowers and all that, the same isnt true. I can reject them, doubt them. they crumble easily and moreover do not corroborate with my experience or our scientific understanding of the world.
I prefer my dharma without warts!
respect to you,
Mat
Rebirth is a doctrine that some accept and others not, but it's also a doctrine that is not worth quibbling over.
I have no intention to dispute any views you hold or do not hold. It seems to me there is a clear theme in the language you choose. It seems to me this is more important than what suttas (or sections within suttas) you wish to accept or reject, and of course you are totally free to do as you see fit.
Consider the following examples, which reveal a mindset
What I would offer to you--and I do this only as something for you to consider and think about--is to understand that from this reader's vantage point, you seem to place a very high value on materialism, and if I dare be so bold, looking at things from a black and white mode of thinking when it comes to what in the suttas is true and what is bunk.
Consider the following statement.
This is not possible! Insight comes from accepting "warts" of reality instead of demanding that it be without them, and more importantly, to progress, we must discard our need for accuracy and perfection in our practice, Such things serve as a major impediment to happiness.
Please know that I felt compelled by compassion to respond to you today because of this.
You say that you accept the four noble truths, but cannot accept other things you read in the suttas, because they do not square with your perspective and experience, which is based on scientific understanding.
But seeking a "percentage of accuracy" of the suttas is not going to be helpful to you, for such a question misses the point of the practice. You are not compelled to believe in anything my friend, so this issue can and should be let go of completely. The seeking mind is always the problem! I am not going to defend the existence of the realms or of devas to you. To be honest with you, I just do not read the suttas with this layer of judgment.
For example, does it matter whether Mara is a literal being, or a figment of the mind? It doesn't ultimately matter, because the mind is where all this reality is created in the first place. The Buddha sitting under the tree was an act of liberation from grasping and delusion. Whether or not Mara was actually, literally tempting the Buddha, or whether the Buddha was just fencing with his own cortical delusions is not materially important here, because liberating the mind was the whole point.
Here is one more small piece of personal experience to share with you. Over the years, I have been rather surprised over the changes of consciousness I have experienced while sitting, and in turn what those changes have done for me in practical terms for my life. Reality is not merely what I can divine through the scientific method, but rather, what happens when my ego molts away and I see the interconnectedness of all beings.
I would suggest that the Buddha's realization of no-self is a more profound claim than the existence of devas. This does not mean devas are "real" in any empirically verifiable way, but it does mean that the mind is incredibly malleable and thus reality is also malleable. Where you are right here; right now...THAT is your reality! However, this reality is typically covered by a massive layer of eye dust.
We have pretty good evidence that he existed. Back in the nineteenth century, there was a period of extreme skepticism when a few people questioned the existence of Jesus and the Buddha and a few other religious figures. That was over a hundred years ago. Today serious scholars generally accept their existence.
If a historical figure is mentioned once or twice in Sallust, that would be less documentation for their existence that there is for the Buddha's existence. But nobody would seriously doubt, on that basis, that they existed.
I have backed it up. I quoted you.
Yes, you dismiss them as an authority, but you use them as an authority when you want to make a claim about what the Buddha taught.
Ad hom. What I believe has nothing to do with the contradiction in your arguments.
Of course I do. Here's an example of it's correct use:
"You personally can take them as just guides and suggestions, but it doesn't logically follow that that's all they are."
This is both an ad hom argument and a strawman.
Ad hom in what way? I simply pointed out that your statement that the suttas are just guides and suggestions is fine as a personal stance, but it doesn't logically limit them to being only that. I made no claims about you personally and it was relevant to your statement.
Why would I make the mistake of assuming that my doubts and certainties are the same as the Buddha's?
How is this relevant? What does it have to do with what the Buddha believed and taught?
That's both strawman and ad hom. It's a strawman because I've said nothing to indicate that I just accept them. You're attributing an argument to me that I've never made. It's ad hom because (1) what I accept or don't accept is a personal attribute and (2) it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Once again:
Yep:) I think a rational skeptic mindset:)
I am a systems theorist rather than a materialist. It doesnt matter to me if there is "matter" or if this is all a dream, illusion, simulation etc.... the point is that reality is a consistent whole without connection to principles that are supernatural.
maybe we are aty cross purposes:) i am talking about objetivbe reality not any subjective representation (insight) of that.
so for me, and I imagine you, I see Dharma as all that flows from there three Dharmic Truths of annica, anataman, dukka. This is a perfect system that leads completely into the conditioned experiences of our lives.
for me the "warts" would be the stuff that simply doesn't fit- ie the supernatural/anomalous/inconsistent stuff.
I am happy, thanks:)
Not just science!
reason: Much in the suttras is incompatible with dharma
history: much in the suttras is found previously in hinduism etc
I am not here to practie but to talk about dharma:) The percentage thing was to try to get some grip on how accurate you yourself think the suttras are:)
Nor could you, even if you wanted. At best you could offer the circular "the texts say it" or the dubious "I have experinced them".
to be honest back, I think that's not what the buddha would have wanted:) Why would you just blindly accept anything you read?
It isnt important to me personally, but in terms of the wider philosopical issues its a very differnt world we live in if it contains magical demonic tempting beings or not:)
I disagree, I think the buddha would too. there is an objective world below the mind and the mind is composed exactly of the arrangement of that world, wther you want to talk neurochemical or skhandas:)
I think it was more than that, but yes, thats a part of it. His enlightenment showed not just these petty human things but a wider set of truths that are true of all possible contingent realities.
There was dharma before suffering. Before thoughts.
I see the intercoennectedness of all systems also:)
I agree totally.
I disagree.
Reality is what it is, it is not subject to change from outside.
That is my subjective reality yes. This moment, this now is all there is for me. It would be very arrogant and foolish of me to assume this is the objective reality.
I am a philosopher, thats what we do. If you dont want to do that thats fine:)
I am very aware of the ability of the mind to delude itself, I assume this is what has happened when people say they have experienced past lives etc.
That's just emperos new clothes stuff to me:)
Lest not forget the buddha tells us that he has nothing hidden away. i am happy to doubt that he said that, however:)
Nice talking:)
Mat
Please can you point me to some links here. As I understand it there is no historical or archeological evidence the buddha existed. I have looked into this a fair bit over the years.
As with Buddha, there isnt any pertinent evidence from the time of jesus that he existed.
um, skeptics would, and should:) How do you feel about Zeus and Quetzecotly?
You're really not getting this point. To recap:
I reject the authority of the suttras and use them as guidelines where I am compelled to accept the self evident core dharma but not all parts at all.
I belive this is the right way to approach them, if you dont, thats fine, but you cannot say I am wrong without being a dogmagtist.
have fun
Straw man.
Non Sequitur.
This game is fun!
It is certainly more "game" than structured and reasoned argument but mianly its a discussion, my attempt to get it structured failed a few posts back (as so often happens), if you would like to "tidy" it up so we can see where we are I will gladly keep it neat.
But regarding one point above:
>>>How do you feel about Zeus and Quetzecotl?
Is this a useless and unsound straw man argument?
I dont think it is, its the standard "new athiest" argument that calls on the lack of any logical distinction between types.
Can I also stress, as its got lots in the mire here, I am merely defening myself against Rens repeated and unestablished accutasion that I have made contrsdictions, which I still dont think i have and he hasnt shown.
if you can show me I will gladly eat the humble pie etc:)
Well wishes and keep it fun:)
Mat
we need to be carful when getting our logical sniper sights out, not all things are sylogysm and calculus.
For example, if a debate pivots on opinion (ie initial assumptions) then ad hnminem counter arguments may have utility (eg hypocracy).
... apparently not.
Of course you can. But people love to score points.:p
P
And is the same true of other doctrines like the Four Noble Truths?
P
I respect the view that it is "quibbling", part of me agrees, but more and more disagrees.
Is it quibbling to debate if there is or is not a god?
>>>>And is the same true of other doctrines like the Four Noble Truths?
These cannot be quibbled over, the cannot be doubted, or at least, I havent managed to sucesfully and nor has anyone else.
There is a profound schism here methinks:)
For one thing they are untestable in any immediate time frame. You have to completely remove ignorance to prove that ignorance is the cause of suffering. So you have to become a buddha to actually prove the four noble truths. Thank you :rolleyes:
Even if you say you are not suffering and that your theory is that being a buddha is a common place everyday thing, wouldn't it also be possible that you had not even realized the first noble truth that there is suffering?
Ha! love it:)
But I disagree:)
My reason:
You can see why The Four Noble Truths are true simply by understanding at how they emmerge from the Three Marks. I think it gets tricky with the eightfold path, but thats due to my lack of ability rather than any problem with the path or its placement within the dharmic structure. (I tried to start a thread investigating this a few weeks ago but, sadly...)
Another reply:
One might also reply to you that if you understand the 4NT fully then you are a Buddha and thus you know you cannoyt doubt the truths. I do like this "mundane buddhahood" kind of view but I am not sure how well it would work with your point above.
High-5,
Mat
The third mark of existence is not objective but subjective..
The three marks of existence merely say "we don't like change"
So to you is the four noble truths = "like change and you'll be happy"
How is the buddha dharma different from "roll with the punches DUDE"
No Matt, you're the one not getting the point. You made a claim about what the Buddha taught, I challenged the claim, and the issue is and always has been your claims about what the Buddha taught. Whether you believe a teaching is scientific or true is irrelevant. What you believe is true has no bearing on what the Buddha believed is true.
I've stated this repeatedly, and you've repeatedly ignored it and tried to bring your and my beliefs into the debate. Whether you or I believe a teaching provides no evidence for whether or not the Buddha believed it.
You are very mistaken in the use of this analogy (or "false analogy" as ren's guide to logic will say).
Newtonian physics works (It still sends us to Uranus).
Dharma works (Its practice makes us happier even if the reality it suggest is false)
So in this level of abstraction they are similar.
But at the more basic levels they are radically different, hence the false analogy.
Newtonian physics doesn't work at the very small levels of the sub-atomic and it doesnt work at the very large levels of the galatic.
However:
The Dharnic truths do work at all levels of reality.
All galaxies are impermanent, interconnected/empty and inevitably negative.
All human experiences are impermanent, interconnected/empty and inevitably negative.
I fundamentally disagree and moreover I can prove why this is the case. I tried to do this in a thread 3 weeks ago but it was censored (moved to a dead forum, all threads are imperminent, and thanks to HTML, interconnected:p)
There was dukka before subjectivity. Please dont just disagree with that before being your own light on emmegrce and layers of abstraction and general systems theory!:)
As said above, I fundamentally disagree. I think that that is just ifferutable wrong view there:) I cannot be that strong on rebirth as I am on this point, Dharma is eternal truth, The buddha is said to have used this term directly.
Dharma is true of all contingent finite systems.
Now when I was having breakfast today, a sudden thought came to mind. What if "liberation from rebirth" actually meant to mean "liberation from the idea of rebirth" that, perhaps, was as burning on every Indian's mind as, say, the fear of hell on a Catholic's? During Buddah's time, the idea if rebirth in India was held indisputable and just as accepted as, say, the theory of evolution among Western scientists today. What if Buddah was telling his disciples: "you do these practices I'm teaching you and the burden of the traditional Indian religion is going to fall off your minds and you'll breathe freely". Traditional Indian teachings, of course, include the idea of rebirth. Possibly, it would have been too risky to just say outright that religious dogma of the day was basically nonsense, so Buddah had to resort to hints?
It is only a thought and I obviously cannot prove it. However, I doubt *anything* can be proven about Buddah since he lived well over two millenia ago and the accounts of his life were basically written based on stories told by others about him. However, I can easily imagine that a person of a keen mind, who Buddah probably was, could resort to hints and metaphoras in order to function in a society where he was well ahead of his time...
I am a virgin buddhist, I cannot use anything after the time of the Buddha as evidence, at best it can confirm Dharma.
I am sorry Ren, you miss my point. We do not even know if the Buddha lived or was an amalgamation, it is meaningless to talk with the certainity you do about the "what the buddha taught"
My entire enquiry with Buddhism is to try to discover from first principles what the Buddha taught because we cannot know any other way than that it is self evident Dharma.
If you want to have a differnt take on things then me that's fine, i am not trying to convince you of anything. but kindly just ignore me and stay away from my posts and I will yours.
I do not want to fight with you over who has the best middle way. You wont ever convince me unless you have a kind of evidence that simply doesn't exist in this world right now.
I get the feeling you are in some sense trying to defend Buddhism. It doesnt need you to defend it and when you try you become unbuddhist and so do I.
Move on, there is no battle here:)
Mat
Yes we have a schism.
No
yes! I agree, you might like some of my stuff on salted.net. i would love to explore this idea more with you:)
yes! have a read of the mirror of dharma section in the mahaparinibba suttra with h this possibility in mind. See what I mean?
My view is that it is more likley modified after his death, in the hundreds of years and miles it traveleved before being written down.
You started your post criticising not being a "sutra scholar," I do think you should start at the beginning, the first sermon, and read your way through with your new perspective as an assumption.
Ask yourself questions like:
Where is rebirth in the four noble truths? in karma? In conditioned causality.
Why doesn't rebirth contradict with imperminance and emptiness and interconnecivity, it seems to, at least intuitively?
If you read Dharma on the assumption of antirebirth (Or as I call "mebirth" as in, its my only life right now..) rather than the traditional assumption of rebirth it comes over might different:)
Salome and would love to talk more on this:)
Mat
You know that bit where I asked you to be familiar with abstraction before commenting...?
hmmm:p
There are two ways I can explain this:
One:
Dukka is true of all systems. if those systems are sentient to a sufficient level of emergence then they will experience this dukka as suffering, stress, strain, failed ambitions, sadness, diminishing returns... and so on.
When the bacteria in the pure water is struggling to survive due to lack of nutrients, it is not suffering but it is subject to Dukka.
Suffering is the experience of illusion(emptiness), impermience and the inevitable negative of all finite systems.
Do you really think the immense genius of the buddha a as moral, psycological and philosophical god ultimately boils down to us little individuals and our sadness? I see it as much much bigger than that, I never really get these people who say "Buddhism is just about an end to suffering."
It's almost insulting to the discovery of dharma!:)
Meta
Mat
This has been a really hard thing for me to get my head around, why Dukka?
I can see why annnica and anataman, they are logically necessary as soon as you have more than one thing.
But why dukka?
I think dukka isnt logically necessary, but it is very close in the tree of emmergence.
To have dukka you need annica and anataman but also your universe needs to contain finite systems. When you have that it follows that all systems will necessarily end in both the temporal (they end in the future and the past) and the structural (they and within the wider structure of interconnected systems) sense.
the moment you add causality to this universe(in our universe its probabalistic causality) you have dependent origination because of annica and anataman.
You dont yet have karma, that comes in when the systems are sufficiently moral/mental. And once you have karma you have all the dharma emerging that the practice of buddhism addresses so well.
No, there would be no universe. No annica, no anataman, no truth, mnpo flase, no meaning, no thing:)
As said above, Dukka comes emmerges when you have finite systems, annica and anataman:)
Am I making sense? if not please say where as I find this very hard to explain:)
Mat
The claim about certainty is a straw man. I've have never claimed to know for certain what the Buddha taught and my challenge to your claims doesn't depend on knowing for certain what the Buddha taught. My challenge is based on the fact that there is no reasonable basis for claiming that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth.
Elsewhere, you've made claims about what the Buddha believed and who he was. You have said that you believed that the Buddha didn't believe in or teach rebirth. You have said that you believed that the Buddha was an atheist, a materialist, and a number of other things. There seems to be a contradiction here. When you want to assert your own beliefs, you make claims about who the Buddha was and what he taught. But when I question those claims, you claim that we don't know whether the Buddha existed and that it is meaningless to talk with certainty about what the Buddha taught.
We have documentary evidence about what the Buddha taught. It's possible to question the documentation, but you haven't done that except by making vague generalizations that are not capable of supporting your claims.
"Self evident Dharma" is not a reasonable basis for evaluating whether the Buddha believed or taught something. It provides evidence only for what you believe.
Straw man. This is not and never has been about who has the best middle way. You've made a number of attempts to bring our beliefs into the debate. You are doing it again. Our beliefs are irrelevant.
This is both a straw man and an ad hom argument. It's a straw man because there is nothing in the posts I have made in this thread that offers any defence of Buddhism. It's an ad hom argument because (1) it is irrelevant and (2) you're making claims about personal behavior.
That is my belief, you wont find anywhere where I have said I am certain of it:)
I have made these claims in this essay: http://salted.net/essays/was-the-buddha-a-buddhist/
I belive the Three Marks are self evident, I cannot doubt them, I have tried. This is my point:)
The same is not true of rebirth, god, jesus, zeus, majic, fairies and of course, santa.
I see them all as the same kind of belief. Why is your belief in rebirth any stronger than a child's in santa?