Was The Buddha a Buddhist?

MatSalted · December 2009

Hi New Buddhists,

I have just published a rather long essay I have written on my salted.net

I hope you find interesting and informative.

I am very happy to have mistakes pointed out:)

Here it is:

Was the Buddha a Buddhist?

Best wishes,

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

Thanks, Mat. I enjoyed the essay. I agree with you that the provenance of the scriptures is highly suspect. The conclusions you draw about the Buddha's message are still too ontological and theoretical for me. Under the Bodhi tree, the Buddha developed a practice which leads to the end of suffering. This practice is personal and experiential, and Buddhist theory needs to be interpreted on that level. So for instance, anatta is a gloss for the fact that a practitioner who holds the question "What is experiencing this?" will see nothing. It is not an assertion that in terms of our shared model of reality, the person does not exist in some sense. (Crucially, a sense which is usually left unspecified. Things get messy when you try to sort out what "exist" might mean in this context.)

The trouble I see with the approach you're taking here is that it's fundamentally verbal, and the personal experience of the practice which leads to the end of suffering is fundamentally nonverbal. It's as if we were a community of diabetics, and the Buddha showed us all how to administer shots of insulin to ourselves. That practice would be his central contribution, and would correspond to what happened under the Bodhi tree. Essays like this would correspond to topological discussions of the need to puncture a closed two-dimensional surface in order to reach its interior. There may be some truth to such discussions, but they would totally miss the point of the insulin injection.

I guess I disagree with you (and perhaps most Buddhists) about Magga. The eightfold way is a good way to live, but I don't think the Buddha was prescribing it as a way to live in its own right, though it is a good one. I think he was describing it as the behavior which the practice he developed under the Bodhi tree leads to, without control or manipulation. This can be seen in the Brahma's net sutra:

7. Bhikkhus! When a worldling<sup>2 </sup>praises the Tathagata<sup>3 </sup>he might do so only in respect of matters of a trifling and inferior nature, of mere morality.<sup>4 </sup>And what are those matters of a trifling and inferior nature, of mere morality, by which a worldling might praise the Tathagata?

8. Bhikkhus! In his praise of the Tathagata, a worldling might say thus: 'Samana Gotama abandons all thoughts of taking life and abstains from destruction of life, setting aside the stick and sword, ashamed to do evil, and he is compassionate and dwells with solicitude for the welfare of all living beings.' etc.

Valtiel · December 2009

Hi Mat,

The scriptures, firstly, are not all considered equal. Even within the Pali Canon, some were written long before others, and some aren't even attributed to the Buddha. The Sutta Pitaka is what's important to me, and in the same way it is to you. For example, you found the basic theory of Conditionality beneficial to you, correct? Well, I go by the same approach, and found that the extended theory that pertains specifically to self-identification and suffering extremely beneficial.

The suttas weren't written by the Buddha, and hell, I've even heard people doubt whether he even existed. That stuff is all irrelevent to me. I'm just interested in the heart of the teachings, and applying them to my practice. I really don't care where the teachings come from... I care about how they actually affect my life.

he really believe in Rebirth or the supernatural?
Why is the Kalama Suttra such an epic (and early) statement of reason and scepticism and yet so in contrast with the “blind faith” aspects of later Buddhism?

Dhamma wrote an excellent post regarding this: http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showpost.php?p=58584&postcount=18

That post should put things into perspective.

For myself, I "know" what the Buddha taught when I see the truth of it for myself and how it leads to the quenching of dukkha. So I am willing to reference a sutta as truth when I see the truth for myself.

Is that not precisely what you do?

It's not that we all sit around humping the Tipitaka all day like you would like to think.

Hopefully you'll realize, that the people that undoubtedly inspired your new essay, aren't so different from you.

When assessing the plausibility of these interpretations, we must bear in mind the Buddha's objective in teaching [paticcasamuppada] . In his teachings, the Buddha aimed to present only that which could be used to address the problems of life on a practical basis. He did not encourage trying to understand reality through conjecture, debate, or analysis of metaphysical problems, which he saw as impossible. For this reason, any assessment of a teaching as authentically Buddhist should involve an assessment of its value in terms of ethical principles.

A definition of the principle of [paticcasamuppada] as a beginningless and endless process of evolution, although seemingly valid, can still be seen to have limited ethical value. What may be gained from it is:

(1) A broader view of the world, as proceeding according to the flow of causes and effects and bound to the conditions found in the natural process. There is no Creator or Appointer, nor is the world a series of aimless accidents. Objectives cannot be realized through merely wishing, supplicating the gods, or luck, but must be effectuated through self-reliant effort based on an understanding of causes and conditions.

(2) Creating the right causes for desired results can only be done when there is an understanding of those causes and the way they connect with their respective results. This necessitates the presence of an understanding (pañña) which is capable of discerning these complexities; life must be dealt with and related to with wisdom.

(3) An understanding of the natural process as subject to the cause and effect continuum can be effective for reducing the delusion which causes clinging to, and identification with, things as self. Such a perspective enables a sounder and more independent relationship with things as they are.

The view of the principle of [paticcasamuppada] as a world-evolution theory, although harmonious with the teachings of the Buddha, is nevertheless somewhat superficial. It lacks a profound, detailed, moment-by-moment analysis of physical and mental components. It is not strong enough or clear enough to unequivocally bring about the three results mentioned above, especially the third. In order to delve deeper into the truth, it is necessary to examine the unfolding of natural events in more detail, on a personal basis, clearly seeing the truth of this process as it actually occurs in our lives, even in very brief instances. With such a clear awareness, the three benefits mentioned above will be more likely to occur. Incidentally, this more immediate interpretation does not preclude the interpretation of the process as evolution on a long-term basis.

Any explanation of the principle of [paticcasamuppada] as a world-evolution theory, whether in a basic or a more subtle sense, will lack depth. The second interpretation, which concerns personal life, and particularly the process of the continuation of personal suffering, is much more profound.

-http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm

As for "Was the Buddha a Buddhist?" - the Buddha taught simply the quenching of Dukkha. Buddhism is the religion that's developed around those teachings. The Buddha was beyond labels. So the answer is clear.

RenGalskap · December 2009

Hi Mat, there are scholars who have devoted their careers to studying this question. There seems to be a considerable amount of information relevant to this that you don't have. I've read books by academic scholars who have studied this and come to conclusions that are different from yours.

MatSalted · December 2009

Hi fivebells

Thanks:)

The conclusions you draw about the Buddha's message are still too ontological and theoretical for me.

Sure, I appreciate that few Buddhists will agree with me, for a variety of reasons including yourse. But, as said (Though in my next essay I hope to clarify this more), once I cannot accept any doctrine without being able to establish it I must resort to first principles which, when dealing with reality and reason are bound to be ontological/architectonic. You may have other options, I just dont:)

Things get messy when you try to sort out what "exist" might mean in this context.

Existence isn't that tricky when you see the world as systems (not things). Perhaps something like: If a system S exists in a reality R then there will be lines of connection (Causal and structual) between that system and all other systems at all level of abstraction.

So the quark in a neuron in my a state I am in now is connected causally and/or structurally to all other systems in space and time. Whereas the horn of the blue unicorn behind me is not connected to any point in space and time except as a representaion of possibility in my head.

The trouble I see with the approach you're taking here is that it's fundamentally verbal, and the personal experience of the practice which leads to the end of suffering is fundamentally nonverbal.

I'm afraid I cant entertain any stipulation of what's "fundamental" or not unless it can be shown to be Fundamental.

I guess I disagree with you (and perhaps most Buddhists) about Magga. The eightfold way is a good way to live, but I don't think the Buddha was prescribing it as a way to live in its own right, though it is a good one. I think he was describing it as the behavior which the practice he developed under the Bodhi tree leads to, without control or manipulation.

That's an interesting notion that I haven't thought of. Litteral buddhists would say "that cant be the case" but it has a plausibility to it that ill ponder some more on, as should you:)

This can be seen in the Brahma's net sutra

The Sutra's for me now I consider to be echoes and curiosities (apart from the parts that come from self evident principles etc as described in my essay). So though I will continue to read them Im sure, but not as anything to be taken seriously in terms of my personal attempt to understand Dharma:)

Best wishes

Mat

MatSalted · December 2009

RenGalskap wrote: »

Hi Mat, there are scholars who have devoted their careers to studying this question.

That's great, they will no doubt think I am wrong:) I am very interested to know any mechanism that can solve the rather numerous and convincing objections to scriptural authenticity and accuracy in my essay:)

There seems to be a considerable amount of information relevant to this that you don't have.

Could you give me a few simple examples, I accept in the conclusion of the essay that this would be a simple way to weaken my argument. But in my investigation I couldn't find any.

I've read books by academic scholars who have studied this and come to conclusions that are different from yours.

I probably come from a very different background and starting point to them?

Importantly, my arguments are not really to do with Buddhism, they are true of any hypothetical document with a similar written/verbal history:)

Thanks for your thoughts,

Mat

Sur

MatSalted · December 2009

Hi o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o

The suttas weren't written by the Buddha, and hell, I've even heard people doubt whether he even existed. That stuff is all irrelevent to me.

And me:)

I'm just interested in the heart of the teachings, and applying them to my practice. I really don't care where the teachings come from... I care about how they actually affect my life.

Thats great:) Enjoy your Dharma Practice, as said, i am also interested in teh "why":)

For myself, I "know" what the Buddha taught when I see the truth of it for myself and how it leads to the quenching of dukkha. So I am willing to reference a sutta as truth when I see the truth for myself.

I don't know what the buddha taught. That it what I would like to find out. I get hints from the suttras and hints from my experience of the practice of Dharma, but I want certainty grounded in reality.

Is that not precisely what you do?

No:)

It's not that we all sit around humping the Tipitaka all day like you would like to think.

No I don't think that.

Hopefully you'll realize, that the people that undoubtedly inspired your new essay, aren't so different from you.

I have notes for this essay going back years and lots of proto stuff on salted.net, but without doubt last weeks "you don't understand the scriptures" replies catalysed me to finish it faster. You might be able to see that from the typoes:P

As for "Was the Buddha a Buddhist?" - the Buddha taught simply the quenching of Dukkha.

At the human experience level of abstraction we agree (though many would argue that things like the cultivation of compassion., love, peace and truth are distinct from the eradication of suffering). But there are many levels of abstraction, I think the Buddha must have known this to arrive at the foundational dharmic truths I state as candidates.

Buddhism is the religion that's developed around those teachings.

I don't think that:) I think Buddhism is the result of millenia of alteration, augmentation of some simple teachings. The reasons for this are going to be a mix of the accidental as well as the culturally and politically motivated - as has happened with all religions.

The Buddha was beyond labels. So the answer is clear.

For you, maybe:) Not for me. But its bee getting clearer these last few years.

Mat

Nirvana · December 2009

Hi, Mat!

What do you mean by cataract? (mentioned under 425 BC The Buddha Dies and near the end)

These are interesting thoughts, much in need of editing and polishing up, though. I'll have to come back to your conclusions again. I'd change the encyclopedia analogy, though; it really doesn't fit the style of scripture, which is narrative. The rest of your argument at least sounds feasible.

There's nothing wrong with brainstorming, unless your religious leaders behead people for things like that.

May all be well with you!

MatSalted · December 2009

Hi Nirvana

Thanks for the reply:)

What do you mean by cataract? (mentioned under 425 BC The Buddha Dies and near the end)

I mean we are told that there was a period of morning etc after the death of the Buddha and his pye when nothing was being done to unify the Buddha's teachings. Ie the cataract is between his death and the First council

These are interesting thoughts, much in need of editing and polishing up, though.

Yes I know, I'm messy!:) I will tidy.

I'll have to come back to your conclusions again. I'd change the encyclopedia analogy, though; it really doesn't fit the style of scripture, which is narrative.

I think my arguments work whatever the "content " of the "message" but take your point.

There's nothing wrong with brainstorming, unless your religious leaders behead people for things like that.

May all be well with you!

And you!:)

Mat

Valtiel · December 2009

I don't know what the buddha taught. That it what I would like to find out. I get hints from the suttras and hints from my experience of the practice of Dharma, but I want certainty grounded in reality.

I'm not talking about knowing the words that came out of his mouth. I'm talking about "knowing" (note: not KNOWING) what he taught by what truly leads to the release of self-identification, thus clinging, thus dukkha. If it leads to those things, then to me it's Buddhadhamma.

For me and many others, the subset of Conditionality that pertains specifically to self-identification, clinging, and dukkha (paticcasamuppada), is what is relevant. While Conditionality applies to all things, knowing that without seeing it and experiencing it in the arising of self-identification and thus suffering is not particularly helpful. This is what the quote I provided discusses: knowing that "when there is this, there is that, and when this ceases, that ceases" was around since the beginning of time, and that it applies to everything including "when I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep," does not aid us in understanding the mind and how dukkha arises and thus how it can be quenched. We are interested in the mind specifically. If you are not, that's fine.

If you were to prove beyond a doubt that the Buddha didn't teach Conditionality specifically within this context (paticcasamuppada), it wouldn't make a difference to anyone who's come to understand it and benefit from it, because those are the people who are interested in results and not developing more self-identification and thus clinging around Buddhism/suttas/the Buddha himself. "Buddhist" is just another label and ultimately means nothing.

If you want to know for certain what came out of his mouth, you will never have certainty grounded in reality, and will be missing the point.

Quote:
Is that not precisely what you do?

No

You... don't base your opinion of what the Buddha truly taught on what you can see for yourself to be true, and you don't use quotes from the suttas to prove your points when you see those quotes to be true yourself...? Ok... :-/

MatSalted · December 2009

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

I'm not talking about knowing the words that came out of his mouth. I'm talking about "knowing" (note: not KNOWING) what he taught by what truly leads to the release of self-identification, thus clinging, thus dukkha. If it leads to those things, then to me it's Buddhadhamma.

I mean in terms of knowing the doctrine the Buddha taught during his life and whether we can know that is the same doctrine we have today or a corrupted version.

For me and many others, the subset of Conditionality that pertains specifically to self-identification, clinging, and dukkha (paticcasamuppada), is what is relevant. While Conditionality applies to all things, knowing that without seeing it and experiencing it in the arising of self-identification and thus suffering is not particularly helpful.

Our opinions and criteria differ. That's fine:)

We are interested in the mind specifically. If you are not, that's fine.

I am interested in the mind, beliefs, reality, experience, reason, ontology, eitiology and all of it. I want to see if there is a consistent system that unifies from first principles. You have made it very clear you are not interested in that. And... that's fine:)

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

I mean in terms of knowing the doctrine the Buddha taught during his life and whether we can know that is the same doctrine we have today or a corrupted version.

More ego stuff. Too bad I am short on time now. Later.

MatSalted · December 2009

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

More ego stuff. Too bad I am short on time now. Later.

Sure:) I shan't expect a reason critique:)

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

MatSalted wrote:

I believe that there is such a yardstick, in fact there are three:<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P>
<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list 36.0ptcolor:black" class=MsoNormal>Logical Necessity: Much of the dharma can be established logically using the first principle of dependent origination as I outline here.<O:P></O:P> <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list 36.0ptcolor:black" class=MsoNormal>Empirical consistency: Much of Dharma and it’s practice can be shown to be the case just by experience (corroborated by reason), but this is not true of vast swathes of Dharma.<O:P></O:P>

Scientific consistency: Much of Dharma is supported by science (HH Dalai Lama’s “The Universe in a Single Atom” is good on this) as any scientist who thinks about the first principles of Dharma will tend to agree. However science pretty much refutes the possibility of Rebirth (Whatever any “quantum Buddhists” may try reason (I have tried, see here)).<O:P></O:P>

Dhamma is not verified by reason or science. Dhamma is mental things verified by the mind.

Deshy · December 2009

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

Dhamma is not verified by reason or science. Dhamma is mental things verified by the mind.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The monk Ajhan Char once said that Dhamma is like the taste of an apple. It is best to know the taste by eating it rather than reading lengthy descriptions on how it tastes like. Dhamma cannot be fully realized with mere words or reasoning. It is far better to realize it through practice.

aaki · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

I am very happy to have mistakes pointed out:)

Learn about the qualities of an arhat. Learn about the results of single-pointed concentration. Understand that really good meditators have instant recall, amongst other capacities. Instant recall we can in general say is being able to recall at will what you have previously heard.

This isn't even the big issue. The big issue is did the arhats who have maintained the lineages realize the same thing that the buddha did.

However science pretty much refutes the possibility of Rebirth

No.

MatSalted · December 2009

aaki wrote: »

Learn about the qualities of an arhat. Learn about the results of single-pointed concentration. Understand that really good meditators have instant recall, amongst other capacities. Instant recall we can in general say is being able to recall at will what you have previously heard.

Even If I could cross the stream with my meditation and become the "best" mediator in history, that wouldn't address any of the points in my essay:)

As an aside, Suppose, I "saw my past lives" in meditation, I personally wouldn't have any justification to believe they were not a mind originated hallucination. If you would, that's fine:)

This isn't even the big issue. The big issue is did the arhats who have maintained the lineages realize the same thing that the buddha did.

Its a big issue for me:)

No(However science pretty much refutes the possibility of Rebirth)

It does, I believe, what science do you believe shows it doesn't?

Thanks

Mat

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

The degree to which a system can stop pursuing the negation of the inevitable negative is proportional to a decrease in the negative states experiences by the system. (Nirodha)<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P>
<O:P></O:P>
10.Understanding the inevitable negative and its effects on all systems will produces emergent benefits at more complex levels of abstraction (Behavioural, psychological, social, moral...). (Magga I’m not at all sure how it fits together re Magga, but I’m thinking about it.)<O:P></O:P>

Nirodha means to 'extinguish without re-arising'. It is the end of psychological negatively. The acceptance of negatively for the purpose of ending negatively is called patience endurance or khanti.

Regarding the inherent unsatisfactoriness or imperfection of conditioned things, the more this is seen, the more the mind is completely free of psychological negatively.

It is important to understand the mind can reach a permanent unconditioned state.

federica · December 2009

Owing to the second line in the original 1st post, I have now moved this thread to a more suitable forum.

*Could I please remind members that if they wish to post threads, to be more selective and accurate as to the destination of their threads, and not use the 'Buddhism for beginners' forum as a general starting point (or dumping ground) for everything they wish to discuss?

Be more discriminating!

Thank you!!*

MatSalted · December 2009

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

Nirodha means to 'extinguish without re-arising'. It is the end of psychological negatively. The acceptance of negatively for the purpose of ending negatively is called patience endurance or khanti.

Regarding the inherent unsatisfactoriness or imperfection of conditioned things, the more this is seen, the more the mind is completely free of psychological negatively.

It is important to understand the mind can reach a permanent unconditioned state.

I think you may have missed the point of my essay:)

I cannot know what, for example, Nirodha means because I cannot trust the sutras or the accounts of the experiences of others. Thus I am forced, by reason, not to ask "What does Dharmic concept X mean?" but rather,

"What truths about reality might Dharmic concept X be said to pertain to and, at higher levels of abstraction, emerge from?"

I think I have some new ideas in regards to answering this question that I have outlined in the conclusion to the essay.

It is an entirely different approach, and its fine that you might not respect it, but that isn't a refutation of it or an explanation of where I am going wrong.

Peace

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

It is an entirely different approach, and its fine that you might not respect it, but that isn't a refutation of it or an explanation of where I am going wrong.

I just don't know what you hope to get out of it.

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

I just don't know what you hope to get out of it.

Enlightenment and happiness and truth, for myself and those who agree with my reasoning:)

And for those who don't, that's fine:)

Peace

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

If there's any enlightenment down this path, it will surprise me. The snake of all this conceptualization would have to eat itself.

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

If there's any enlightenment down this path, it will surprise me.

Do you believe in the abundancy and simplicity arguments of my essay? If you do then its pretty clear Enlightenment cannot come just from a lifetime of meditation but from a few simple truths conveyed in not much time at all.

I believe Enlightenment is simple, perhaps even mundane.

The snake of all this conceptualization would have to eat itself.

At the basic level of first principles I'm placed at, such metaphores have no meaning to me:)

Thanks

Mat

Avalokitesvara · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

Was the Buddha a Buddhist?

The Buddha is an awakened one who understands the things that his long experience in the phenomenal world has made him the wisdom needed to accumulate a certain kind of lighting.His teaching can be interpreted at different levels of understanding as that of the four truths. The Buddha was not a philosopher, was not a psychologist, was not a name that is given to someone, it's just one of countless sentient creature of the Creator that has been achieved by understanding the dharma of the universe!

fivebells · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

I believe Enlightenment is simple, perhaps even mundane.

This is correct. It is, in fact, much more simple and mundane than the thoughts presented in your essay.

MatSalted · December 2009

Avalokitesvara wrote: »

The Buddha is an awakened one who understands the things that his long experience in the phenomenal world has made him the wisdom needed to accumulate a certain kind of lighting.His teaching can be interpreted at different levels of understanding as that of the four truths. The Buddha was not a philosopher, was not a psychologist, was not a name that is given to someone, it's just one of countless sentient creature of the Creator that has been achieved by understanding the dharma of the universe!

But do you see how you are using the doctrine to establish the doctrine? If you are happy with that circularity then that's cool for you, I am not.

When you say "the buddha was not..." I want to know why you know that? It can't be from the sutras and it cant be from your experience.

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

I cannot know what, for example, Nirodha means because I cannot trust the sutras or the accounts of the experiences of others.

Lol.

The suttas state the following about nirodha. What can't you trust?

Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is remainderless fading and ceasing, giving up, relinquishing, liberation from and rejecting of that same craving.

In short, your blog is non-sense because the suttas are 95% perfect.

Avalokitesvara · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

When you say "the buddha was not..." I want to know why you know that? It can't be from the sutras and it cant be from your experience.

Why not be from my experience?

Do you know my experience?

:rolleyes:

I also believe that some of his teachings are still things have changed and distorted by creating different currents of thought all at a very low level compared to the original teachings.

MatSalted · December 2009

Avalokitesvara wrote: »

Why not be from my experience?

Do you know my experience?

:rolleyes:

No No.. read what I said carefully please:) Your experience cannot entail my certainty, no matter how sure you are of it. Moreover, my experience cannot either, because as I said in the essay, I need experience that is compatible with reason.

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

Thus I am forced, by reason, not to ask "What does Dharmic concept X mean?" but rather,

"What truths about reality might Dharmic concept X be said to pertain to and, at higher levels of abstraction, emerge from?"

The suttas are not abstraction. They are for the most part perfectly spoken words from a perfectly enlightened mind.

There is no higher level abstraction that can be added to the suttas.

If one's view of and about reality is obscured, the suttas will seem theoretical.

For unenlightened beings, they are always forced to ask "What does Dharmic concept X mean?"

When we think we know better than the suttas...brother...pray to God.

When we seek to drag the suttas down to our level (which is a very common undertaking) then...that is what we do...

MatSalted · December 2009

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

In short, your blog is non-sense because the suttas are 95% perfect.

If you think that its nonesense no problem:) But just saying you think that without showing me why, is nonsense to me:)

And you cant show me why without recall to the sutras which we both agree are imperfect:)

Mat

DhammaDhatu · December 2009

Hi Mat

The suttas have a few foreign additions to them, which are easily discerned.

Apart from that, they are remarkably repetitive & consistant.

How can one doubt the following extracts?

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...etc

The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality...ill-will... harmfulness arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality...ill-will...harmfulness has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to peace.'

Good night from Aussie Land. Kind regards

MatSalted · December 2009

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

Hi Mat

The suttas have a few foreign additions to them, which are easily discerned.

Apart from that, they are remarkably repetitive & consistant.

How can one doubt the following extracts?

Good night from Aussie Land. Kind regards

Goodnight, I hope one day you can escape the circle of circular reason as well as samsara!:)

Avalokitesvara · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

No No.. read what I said carefully please:) Your experience cannot entail my certainty, no matter how sure you are of it. Moreover, my experience cannot either, because as I said in the essay, I need experience that is compatible with reason.

OK!

Valtiel · December 2009

Mat,

When you say "the buddha was not..." I want to know why you know that? It can't be from the sutras and it cant be from your experience. :):)

Can you tell me how you know what the Buddha taught or did not teach? It cannot be from your own experience, and it cannot be from the suttas or commentaries, and your logic for uncovering "authentic teachings" cannot have its basis in the suttas (i.e. "I want the enlightenment people attained after hearing just a few words [according to the suttas]").

I cannot know what, for example, Nirodha means because I cannot trust the sutras or the accounts of the experiences of others.:):):)

But you can better trust the definition of a foreign word and concept that you pulled out of your butt? To me, it seems you did all of this to make the goal easier for yourself to achieve... by redefining the goal. You did not want to have to make any effort whatsoever.

Why do you feel the need to pick bits and pieces from the suttas and redefine absolutely every major word and concept in Buddhism? You've changed the meaning of dukkha, anicca, anatta, Nibbana, paticcasamuppada, and god knows what else, without any understanding of the language whatsoever.

Why do you feel the need to attribute these things to the Buddha? Why does that matter so much to you? The fact is, the criteria you came up with for "dhamma authenticity" was pulled out of your butt as well, so that you could claim you discovered the true words of the Buddha. Your approach is not scientific at all.. it just desperately wants to be, as we can see when you turn every basic sentence into a formula, without ever going on to use the values you felt the need to muddle your sentences with in the first place:

Perhaps something like: If a system S exists in a reality R then there will be lines of connection (Causal and structual) between that system and all other systems at all level of abstraction. :):)

You've decided that the story of the Buddha is true. Somehow you took from that story that he attained "instant enlightenment" and that's what you want. You believe people heard a few words spoken and attained enlightenment. Why? You certainly can't verify THAT, yet you've gobbled that bit of the suttas up quite willingly because it suits your purposes.

The Buddha, from what we know, was on his path for a long time, learning deep forms of meditation from masters... even on the night of his enlightenment, he was practicing deep meditation (i.e. he didn't just give meditation a whirl for the first time that night, but was already a master), but you've dismissed meditation in the past. This makes no sense. It is silly to think that the delusion of "self" could fully know not-self.. in fact, it's impossible, it's contradictory; anatta is not a concept to be understood intellectually, but a truth to be realized fully and internally to the point that you never have to remind yourself "this is not me, this is not self, this is not mine" ever again. Even you think so, as you say you still experience dukkha (mentally), and that is because paticcasamuppada still applies to you.

You're telling people that:

If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.

and that this means:

If there is impermenence, there is suffering
If there stops being impermenence, there will be no suffering

Therefore, life sucks because impermenence is inherent and applies to everything, therefore suffering is inherent and applies to everything, and we should rejoice and this understanding and acceptance is Nibbana.

Paticcasamuppada teaches me:

When there is this, there is that,
When there is not this, there is not that.

When there is ignorance, there is dukkha
When ignorance ceases, dukkha ceases

Therefore, through practice (i.e. meditation) and getting paticcasamuppada under control and fully realizing anatta on every level (full release of the "self-concept"), we can quench dukkha, and this is Nibbana:

"'Even though I may be afflicted in body , my mind will be unafflicted .' That is how you should train yourself ." -da Buddha

Why is this elaboration a bad thing to you, Mat? Do you really not think that this elaboration on Conditionality that pertains to the suffering of the Mind and how it can end is more significant than "when I'm knocking on your door, I'm on your doorstep"? Why do you want to do away with this teaching when it's benefiting people and in a much more profound way than what you've described?

If you can respond without condescending

:):)'s, I'll give you a cookie.

MatSalted · December 2009

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o

But you can better trust the definition of a foreign word and concept that you pulled out of your butt? To me, it seems you did all of this to make the goal easier for yourself to achieve... by redefining the goal. You did not want to have to make any effort whatsoever.

You are not understanding me if you say that:)

Why do you feel the need to pick bits and pieces from the suttas and redefine absolutely every major word and concept in Buddhism?

Because I belive the sutras and all that follows from them cannot be grounded in reason.

You've changed the meaning of dukkha, anicca, anatta, Nibbana, paticcasamuppada, and god knows what else, without any understanding of the language whatsoever.

That would be the language, Pali, that the Buddha didn't speak?

You cant have it all ways:) You cant say its not important and then try to batter me with it:) You do that allot.

Why do you feel the need to attribute these things to the Buddha?

Because someone discovered the foundational Dharmic truths. There have been there for ever and will always be there. I am happy to believe that the Buddha discovered them, but equally, it might have been some Vedic sage five millenia before him. The fact is, they are there and somone in history found them.

Why does that matter so much to you?

Because I want to know what the Buddha found, not what the preposterous pathway I described in my essay has amalgamated into the various schools of "Buddhism".

The fact is, the criteria you came up with for "dhamma authenticity" was pulled out of your butt as well,

I believe most people call would call it the scientific method and logical reasoning.

Your approach is not scientific at all.

Can you explain why not? Which stage am I going wrong?

1) There is a question that needs to be answered, "Can we be sure these extant Buddhist doctrines are the same as the Buddha discovered?"
2) We can see the sequence that connects the two items of the question, then and now.
3) Are the many arguments based on the evidence, as I stated in my essay based on valid reasoning? if they are not, where have I gone wrong?
4) From the evdince and the reasoning are there any alternative explainations that can allow for the lack of corruption or addition in the doctrines over millenia?

What is not scientifc about that?

You've decided that the story of the Buddha is true.

You haven't read my essay, clearly:)

Somehow you took from that story that he attained "instant enlightenment" and that's what you want.

You haven't read my essay, clearly:)

You believe people heard a few words spoken and attained enlightenment. Why?

It doesn't matter to my if this argument stands or fails, as said. My point is its evidence that confirms my hypothesis and dis-confirms the notion of "mystcial and difficult " enlightenment. Again very scientific.

The kalama sutra confirms my hypothesis, it doesn't prove it or dis-confirm it The fact that I can emerge dukka like concepts out of first principles to me, confirms this.

Again, if it doesn't to you, that's fine:)

The Buddha, from what we know, was on his path for a long time, learning deep forms of meditation from masters... even on the night of his enlightenment, he was practicing deep meditation (i.e. he didn't just give meditation a whirl for the first time that night, but was already a master), but you've dismissed meditation in the past.

You cant have that and the Simplicity/Abundance arguments. As soon as you start top rely on any aspect of the buddhist narrative as foundational then you have to accept the rest.

Even you think so, as you say you still experience dukkha (mentally), and that is because paticcasamuppada still applies to you

.

Dukka is life! Its everywhere, of course I experience it mentally. But it existed at other levels of abstraction way before me and other minds.

If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.

and that this means:

If there is impermenence, there is suffering
If there stops being impermenence, there will be no suffering

No, I am saying that the causality and interconnectivity of all systems within a finite possibility space entails dukka. At higher levels of abstraction sentient systems will expeirnce this dukka as suffering, straing etc...

Therefore, life sucks because impermenence is inherent and applies to everything, therefore suffering is inherent and applies to everything, and we should rejoice and this understanding and acceptance is Nibbana.

No, life doesnt suck! Life is rare, hard and short and sadly its the only one we have. But by truth , understanding and goodness it can be wonderful and valuable and have so many other properties that are not the natural norm, even as all life tends towards the ineveitabe negative of itself and any state it is in.

Can you try to understand that please, you don't have to believe it but try to see what I am saying at least, if you are interested we can disuss it.

Paticcasamuppada teaches me:

That's great, but I am not interested in anything that cannot be emerged from first principles, as I have said many times. It would be great if you could do this, I have tried, its hard.

Why is this elaboration a bad thing to you, Mat?

I wnat to start at the start. Again, please try to see what I want here befopre you attack it:)

Why do you want to do away with this teaching when it's benefiting people and in a much more profound way than what you've described?

I don't want to do away with it, I want to think philosophically about Dharma. Its a big big part of my life, as is practice.

If you can respond without condescending :):)'s, I'll give you a cookie.

You are aggressive, insulting and beligerant, you have called me a "troll" and many other attempts to belittle me. I care not. I know you vehemently agree with me, but have havent started with the very un Budhist attitude you have, at all. I am try not to be confrontational with you, if it comes over as patronising, generally that's not my intention. Though sometimes, its hard;)

Simply:

Show me wrong, think me wrong, but don't think you can just tell me I am wrong and I will agree with you. I have spent twenty years of my life studying, teaching, thinking about philolosphy and nearly a decade on these Dharma issues. These are not fleeing ideas I had in my armchair last week. If you are going to show me wrong, your going to need to do better than trying to poke me with a circular argument:)

Show me something wrong with my reasoning or just think me wrong:)

either way is fine by me.

Mat

Valtiel · December 2009

Oh, no cookie for you.

keep reaching.

Because I belive the sutras and all that follows from them cannot be grounded in reason.

NOT that I'm suggesting the suttas are flawless, but you dismiss something you've never even bothered to read or study, and are therefore dismissing certain concepts like the 12 Links without studying the concept from the original source. This alone makes your approach unscientific.

That would be the language, Pali, that the Buddha didn't speak?

You cant have it all ways:) You cant say its not important and then try to batter me with it:) You do that allot.

What is your point...? YOU can't have it both ways.

The words are defined. You are actually so arrogant that you think you can change the meaning of words in another language. The Buddha didn't speak Pali, so stop using these Pali terms yourself, yeah? Make up your own words if you prefer, because what you've done in your essay shows your lack of interest in science: you have taken the formula e=mc^2, not bothered to research this formula and what it truly means, and decided to redefine all of the values so that the formula makes sense to you, like so:

I believe most people call would call it the scientific method and logical reasoning.

I will repeat myself: It is silly to think that the delusion of "self" could fully know not-self..

in fact, it's impossible, it's contradictory; anatta is not a concept to be understood intellectually, but a truth to be realized fully and internally to the point that you never have to remind yourself "this is not me, this is not self, this is not mine" ever again.

Only when that happens could you claim enlightenment.

Basically, you can experience freedom from "self" and clinging in meditation... in other words, freedom from dukkha. When the self-concept is totally done away with, there is pure internal peace, and this is Nibbana. Starting from scratch, this is what the Buddha sought.

1) There is a question that needs to be answered, "Can we be sure these extant Buddhist doctrines are the same as the Buddha discovered?"

And the only way you can "know" that is by what teachings lead to full realization of anatta and thus the cessation of dukkha. Have you heard of the two arrows? Do you actually understand what it is the people here are interested in achieving? What do you think we're looking for, Mat? Why do you think the Buddha was interested in "if someone is knocking at my door, they're on my doorstep"?

It doesn't matter to my if this argument stands or fails, as said. My point is its evidence that confirms my hypothesis and dis-confirms the notion of "mystcial and difficult " enlightenment. Again very scientific.

No, not scientific. Enlightenment is the quenching of dukkha, correct? You have admitted you have not achieved this.

Are you going to change your position to "The Buddha only sought to explain suffering, not end it, and when you understand something, you can accept it and be happy with it!"?

Enlightenment to everyone you're talking to here isn't "mystical," either, so please get these ideas out of your head and listen to what we actually say.

Dukka is life! Its everywhere, of course I experience it mentally. But it existed at other levels of abstraction way before me and other minds.

Dukkha is not life.

I feel very sorry for anyone who feels this way. Dukkha, you admit, is something felt by the mind so to speak. So, can you perhaps see why the illustration of mental suffering is so important to us...? Can you perhaps consider, that the Buddha taught a path to the quenching of mental suffering...?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Paticcasamuppada teaches me: </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That's great, but I am not interested in anything that cannot be emerged from first principles, as I have said many times. It would be great if you could do this, I have tried, its hard.

It can, though, Mat. And if you cannot see that, then you've yet to see how Conditionality applies to all systems, and the significance of the way it applies to this one.

I wnat to start at the start. Again, please try to see what I want here befopre you attack it:)

Well, that's a terrible reason to remove a concept and practice that leads to peace of the Mind from Buddhism, I've gotta say.

You are aggressive, insulting and beligerant, you have called me a "troll" and many other attempts to belittle me. I care not. I know you vehemently agree with me, but have havent started with the very un Budhist attitude you have, at all. I am try not to be confrontational with you, if it comes over as patronising, generally that's not my intention. Though sometimes, its hard;)

*frames* :eek:

MatSalted · December 2009

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o

NOT that I'm suggesting the suttas are flawless, but you dismiss something you've never even bothered to read or study

That's simply not true. When I started studying Buddhism I actually got quite into them:)

You assume so much:)

You are actually so arrogant that you think you can change the meaning of words in another language. The Buddha didn't speak Pali, so stop using these Pali terms yourself, yeah?

You just don't get it, and after repeated attempts you wont try.

Show me wrong. Simple.

I will repeat myself: It is silly to think that the delusion of "self" could fully know not-self.. in fact, it's impossible, it's contradictory;

Ahh! Good, now, where is the contradiction?

Basically, you can experience freedom from "self" and clinging in meditation... in other words, freedom from dukkha. When the self-concept is totally done away with, there is pure internal peace, and this is Nibbana. Starting from scratch, this is what the Buddha sought.

Circular.

No, not scientific. Enlightenment is the quenching of dukkha, correct?

Maybe, maybe its that which leads to the quenching of dukka, maybe its the understanding of Dukka that leads to enlightenment.

You have admitted you have not achieved this.

Its not about me! Its baout reality! You just do not listen.

Well, that's a terrible reason to remove a concept and practice that leads to peace of the Mind from Buddhism, I've gotta say.

Yes, its a bit like saying to a Christan "There is no god, heaven or soul" Only in the case of Dharma there is something to fill the hole, namley, Dharma.

We will never agree, and I am not out to change your mind:)

No fight here:)

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

Circular.

No: empirical. (Not sure why you're reifying arguments from "first principles." Could you list your axioms for us?)

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

No: empirical. (Not sure why you're reifying arguments from "first principles." Could you list your axioms for us?)

Sure, they are as stated in the essay:) But the further down the list they are the less axiomatic they are. That is the nature of emmergence:)

1. All events are causes.(Pattica samupada)

2. All causes are events. (Patitca sampuada)

3. All systems are impermanent.(Annica)

4. All systems are interconnected. (Annataman and Sunnata)

5. All systems inevitably converge towards negative states. (Dukka)

6. All sentient-intelligent systems will experience this convergence negatively. (Dukka as suffering.)

7. The cause/propagator of this suffering is misunderstanding/misapprehending the inevitable negative and because of this refusing to stop the conscious and subconscious decisions that pursue the negation of the inevitable negative(Phew!) (Tanha and Samudaya)

8. The degree to which a system can stop pursuing the negation of the inevitable negative is proportional to a decrease in the negative states experiences by the system. (Nirodha)

9. Causation and interconnectivity operate at all complexities thus moral/psychological/social causes have moral/psychological/social effects at all complexities. (Karma)

10. Understanding the inevitable negative and its effects on all systems will produces emergent benefits at more complex levels of abstraction (Behavioural, psychological, social, moral...). (Magga I’m not at all sure how it fits together re Magga, but I’m thinking about it.)

As I say, I am not sure of the exactness here but even if we can get to something that looks on the right track, its better than we have now:)

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

What does "All systems inevitably converge towards negative states," mean?

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

What does "All systems inevitably converge towards negative states," mean?

Consider a deck of cards arranged neatly in suits and imagine the order changing (shuffling) as all things do. Any change will be a change away from that order, and, in addition, the probability increasingly decreases the more the deck is shuffled that it will to the original neat order. The deck of cards has a finite possibility space and the vastest extent of that space is change away from order not towards.

The same is true of all systems that constitute reality; change will take place in a finite possibility space. In physical terms this fact is captured by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In economic terms by the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. In human terms by realisations such as “the more of Great Thing X you have, the less great X becomes.” Change reduces the possibility space and if that space is valued by some other agent (like you) then change tends towards the negative.

It’s not just that all things change but that most change tends towards the negative.

What do I mean by "negative?" I mean less complex, less rare, less potential at the purley system level, or at higher levels its that which in various senses life (bacterial...human) tries to avoid. So whether its creme mixing in coffee or the first go on the roller-coaster, its inherent in those systems that there will be inevitably negative states due to the diminishing possibility space.

If I haven't explained myself clearly please point that out and I will have another go:)

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

What do I mean by "negative?" I mean less complex, less rare, less potential at the purley system level, or at higher levels its that which in various senses life (bacterial...human) tries to avoid. So whether its creme mixing in coffee or the first go on the roller-coaster, its inherent in those systems that there will be inevitably negative states due to the diminishing possibility space.

This is too vague. "Less potential at the purely system level" is at odds with "that which... life tries to avoid." Is the evolution of humans a negative or a positive development, overall?

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

This is too vague. "Less potential at the purely system level" is at odds with "that which... life tries to avoid."

Sure, i am happy to accept that criticism. Its not a refutation, however. This is a work in progress. Can you at least see what I am getting at?

That all sentient-intelligent systems that have evolved to survive must "favour" that survival in their "decisions" or else they simpl;y wouldnt have had the right interactions to get to that point.

Its analogous to the idea that societies prise goodness because if they didn't they wouldn't persist...

Is the evolution of humans a negative or a positive development, overall?

I think positive. But that another debate, perhaps:)

Going back to the "axioms", do you at least with the first 4?

1. All events are causes.

2. All causes are events.

3. All systems are impermanent.

4. All systems are interconnected.

Thanks

Mat

fivebells · December 2009

MatSalted wrote: »

Can you at least see what I am getting at?

Not as an argument from first principles. I can frame it in terms of my own experience, but it seems as though you're opposed to that on some level.

MatSalted · December 2009

fivebells wrote: »

Not as an argument from first principles. I can frame it in terms of my own experience, but it seems as though you're opposed to that on some level.

Well lets see if we can get it clear, na?

Can you imagine a world in which there was no impermanence?

Think in terms of simple abstract universes, because it follows that you cant in those idealised worlds you wont be able to in worlds like ours.

I think that as soon as you have change you have impermanence. Do you agree with this?

Thank you for taking the time:)

mat

Valtiel · December 2009

I will repeat myself: It is silly to think that the delusion of "self" could fully know not-self.. in fact, it's impossible, it's contradictory;

Ahh! Good, now, where is the contradiction?

Well if you hadn't cut off the part of the sentence after the semi-colon, you'd have your answer already.

As Fivebells once said, understanding anatta intellectually is next to useless and, at best, you'll end up with a self that understands not-self. The contradiction is glaring. The benefit of anatta comes from full realization of it, as I explained: "a truth to be realized fully and internally to the point that you never have to remind yourself "this is not me, this is not self, this is not mine" ever again." It is THAT realization that is Nibbana.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Well, that's a terrible reason to remove a concept and practice that leads to peace of the Mind from Buddhism, I've gotta say. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes, its a bit like saying to a Christan "There is no god, heaven or soul" Only in the case of Dharma there is something to fill the hole, namley, Dharma.

You are comparing understanding of the Mind and release from the delusion of "I, me, and mine" which leads to internal peace to believing in a soul and Heaven and God...? Are you saying that if you took this away from us, the hole could be filled by the basic theory of Conditionality that applies to all systems which we already have...?

That's simply not true. When I started studying Buddhism I actually got quite into them:)

You assume so much

If you had done any studying of the suttas beyond casual parusing, you would never have thought that the suttas teach paticcasamuppada as a literal rebirth doctrine.

MatSalted · December 2009

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

Well if you hadn't cut off the part of the sentence after the semi-colon, you'd have your answer already.

The truncation was intended.

Lets stop:)

Mat

Valtiel · December 2009

:rolleyes:

...:coffee::)

fivebells · December 2009

You're going to have to define those "simple, abstract universes" for me, then convince me that those are the only universes there could be, keeping in mind that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine." (Which is why empiricism is so important.)

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Was The Buddha a Buddhist?

Comments