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.
what did the Buddha teach?
Namaste everyone
It's been 2 months since I last posted here.
As promised before I left for India, I have checked out the sites referred to me and spent close to 150 internet hours reading about Buddhism. Along the cyberspace way I found interesting stuff indeed.
However, also while in India sick, I came to realization that my belief system (I'm a theist) will only make sense to me if I try to make a synthesis of the system, which will also include giving up cultural bagages and other things which I call "insane" realities that arose around a sub-culture within a western culture that was built up mostly by westerners (i'm sorry to say that).
Now, I want to develop myself as a reasonable sentient being and ground whatever practices I have with the Buddha's teachings.
What were his teachings?
From my readings, I found out that the 423-verse Dhammapada, written shortly after his passing away, is the only piece of writing that can reliably be said to represent the Buddha's teachings.
And on the contrary as is a common conception, the Dhammapada talks about the self, life beyond this life and some inferences to karma.
I also found out that the 3 schools of Buddhist philosophy (dependent origination in different strains)have nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings at all because they emerged almost 200 years after the passing of the Buddha:
(1) the Realists (Sautrantikas and Vaibhashikas), who hold that both consciousness and the external material world are real;
(2) the Idealists (Yogacara philosophers such as Vasubandhu), who maintain that consciousness-only is real; and
(3) the Voidists (Madhyamikas such as Nagarjuna), who claim that everything is void or empty.]
Adi Sankaracharya (788 - 820), an advaita vedantist ( I dont fully subscribe to that school, btw) made brilliant commentaries on those systems of thought.
I personally find the 3 systems philosophically problematic if pushed to its logical conclusion. And modern studies in consciousness can pose more problems on these assertions.
I think it will serve history right if we dont muddle the Buddha's teachings by introducing extraneous doctrine.
The Buddha's teachings are bright, self evident and universal and can be applied by anyone who wants some practical guidance in their lives.
I just request for some sector of the buddhist community not to scare people away by forcing on it extraneous teachings.
I think this is one reason why after first inquiring into buddhism in 2004 I decided that it's not very smart because it contradicted all the recognized means of knowledge namely: perception, inference, the verbal testimony of the timeless wisdom, and revealed Scriptures or literature if you dont like the term, etc.. The reality of the phenomenal world should be guaranteed by all the means of knowledge.
I have no hidden agenda here; just a genuine inquiry into buddhism. (Also I'm not Indian)
Namaste
It's been 2 months since I last posted here.
As promised before I left for India, I have checked out the sites referred to me and spent close to 150 internet hours reading about Buddhism. Along the cyberspace way I found interesting stuff indeed.
However, also while in India sick, I came to realization that my belief system (I'm a theist) will only make sense to me if I try to make a synthesis of the system, which will also include giving up cultural bagages and other things which I call "insane" realities that arose around a sub-culture within a western culture that was built up mostly by westerners (i'm sorry to say that).
Now, I want to develop myself as a reasonable sentient being and ground whatever practices I have with the Buddha's teachings.
What were his teachings?
From my readings, I found out that the 423-verse Dhammapada, written shortly after his passing away, is the only piece of writing that can reliably be said to represent the Buddha's teachings.
And on the contrary as is a common conception, the Dhammapada talks about the self, life beyond this life and some inferences to karma.
I also found out that the 3 schools of Buddhist philosophy (dependent origination in different strains)have nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings at all because they emerged almost 200 years after the passing of the Buddha:
(1) the Realists (Sautrantikas and Vaibhashikas), who hold that both consciousness and the external material world are real;
(2) the Idealists (Yogacara philosophers such as Vasubandhu), who maintain that consciousness-only is real; and
(3) the Voidists (Madhyamikas such as Nagarjuna), who claim that everything is void or empty.]
Adi Sankaracharya (788 - 820), an advaita vedantist ( I dont fully subscribe to that school, btw) made brilliant commentaries on those systems of thought.
I personally find the 3 systems philosophically problematic if pushed to its logical conclusion. And modern studies in consciousness can pose more problems on these assertions.
I think it will serve history right if we dont muddle the Buddha's teachings by introducing extraneous doctrine.
The Buddha's teachings are bright, self evident and universal and can be applied by anyone who wants some practical guidance in their lives.
I just request for some sector of the buddhist community not to scare people away by forcing on it extraneous teachings.
I think this is one reason why after first inquiring into buddhism in 2004 I decided that it's not very smart because it contradicted all the recognized means of knowledge namely: perception, inference, the verbal testimony of the timeless wisdom, and revealed Scriptures or literature if you dont like the term, etc.. The reality of the phenomenal world should be guaranteed by all the means of knowledge.
I have no hidden agenda here; just a genuine inquiry into buddhism. (Also I'm not Indian)
Namaste
0
Comments
That Buddha taught the origin of dukkha and that which leads to freedom of it. Anything that points to this is a reliable representation of the Buddha's teachings. The Dhammapada is a beautiful text but certainly isn't the only piece that can be said to represent his teachings. There are many suttas and even commentaries and essays only written in recent years that I would suggest before it, in fact. What makes you say this?
Not sure what your last two points are about (in reference to "contrary to common conception"). In reference to "self," please read this.
Nothing was written down in the Buddha's time. Again, that which explains the arising of dukkha and the quenching of dukkha is an accurate representation of his teachings.
What teachings are you talking about?
I imagine, if the Dhammpada speaks to you as truth, on a very profound level, you may use it as stuff to place in the crucible of contemplation - for investigation and analysis - in order to accomplish its clear understanding and verification. Then, with confidence, you may meditate upon this clear understanding and make it a characteristic of your appearing being.
Cutting through all the other stuff, I imagine this as what the Buddha invites us to do.
Be a Rhino!
Thanks for your replies.
B Bob,
Yes, that is why a prolific Advaita vedantist monk-writer in New Mexico even posted his beautiful commentary on the Dhammapada.
He got the same conclusion as I did because maybe like him I read the Dhammapada in isolation from other so-called buddhist writings.
OVD, Pietro,
Sorry if my OP seemed to loose continuity in thought in that the extraneous teachings Im referring to didnt point to the the 3 schools of philosophy i mentioned.
To me anything that denies the reality of the self is extraneous because the Buddha's words in Dhammapada revolve around the self as the cause of one's "happiness" or "unhappiness", the one that has to perform his own dharma, the seed of continuum in the life beyond this life, etc.
As it stands, if you scan posts in forums you'll see that whatever the topic is the replies always can be traced back to the denial of the self.
Many people of different religious persuasions that are at first attracted to the universal teachings of the buddha get turned off as soon as they hear the denial of the reality of the self.
It's sad because they can be buddhists (finding inspirations in the Buddha) even when finding meaning through their selves.
If the dhammapada brings you liberation then gratz. There are also 83999 other doors that buddha created. After buddhas death his teaching transformed his students. They continued to create countless other doors to awakening.
It is said (like Mungus is saying) that 21000 of those doors were for purification of anger. 21000 of those doors were for purification of greed. 21000 of those doors were for purification of delusion. 21000 were for purification of mixtures.
Secondly, what Buddhism denies is a permanent self, a soul. Buddhism does not deny what we conveniently refer to as "self" in everyday life - what it does is recognize it for what it is: impermanent and ever-changing and thus unfit to be clung to as if it were otherwise, as if it were "self." When we explore the nature of dukkha, we see this is how it arises. This is a practical teaching, "super-psychology" if you will - not an ontological teaching.
I linked you to an explanation of the Pali in the Dhammapada. The Buddha is not speaking of a soul. It is obvious that every individual is responsible, ultimately, for their own happiness or unhappiness. Buddhism, outside the Dhammapada as well, consistently teaches this. The Buddha endured horrible physical pains and sickness with peace of mind and clarity. This is the sort of thing it refers to.
Actually they are 84000 dhamma doors to liberation representing the N8FP, 4NT and 3 marks of existence.
How idiotic.
Best wishes,
Abu
Indeed, my impression too is that Buddha didn't deny a `self` as such, contrary to the commentarial tradition.
However, one shouldn't confuse conventional `self` with the `self-doctrine` of theist belief systems.
The conventional understanding of `self` is a useful word for meditators.
For example, as you correctly pointed out, the Buddha said `Be an island (lamp) unto yourself`.
What does that mean? Have self-responsibility! ...as opposed to relying on some external force.
Here we have the context: the Buddha uses `self` as a conventional expression.
It deals with `external` things, contrasting `spiritual` with `worldly`.
Other examples of conventional `self`: ...not externally-enlightened. :eek:
Here, he's talking of "outsiders'" praise in contrast to spiritual "self-conquest".
...another conventional `worldly` context.
However...
...`self` as worldly language.
Also, unlike in common Hindu beliefs, the Buddha does not confuse `self` with Brahma (God) or Nirvana:
... because the complete explanation of `self`it THE characteristic that distinguishes the Buddha's teaching from all other teachings, as shown in the famous Lion's Roar:
By the way, the Dhammapada has many excerpts from Suttas & was originally targeted for Novices.
Happy Uposatha, Friends.
and
(4) the Buddha principle , who hold the timeless matrix / womb / life-state of Tathagata that prevails in the life of all living beings , commonly known as Buddha-nature , Tathagata-garbha, Buddha-dhatu in East Asia Buddhism
Actually, as the Buddha said the True aspect of the Reality can be only undestands between the Buddhas , all the above 1 to 4 are just different approach of perspective to see the same reality, due to the limitation in our faculty we human have
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csyCrcpDs58
I don't agree with that. We do know that nothing the Buddha spoke was written down until several hundred years after his passing. There is a misconception that writing did not exist in India when the Buddha lived. Actually, Brahmi Script was being used. The Buddha could have had his teachings recorded. He chose not to. I have an idea why. It appears that writing was only used for things like census taking and keeping business records. So, it was considered crass and just not a suitable way to transmit religious teachings.
The Pali Canon / Nikayas appears to contain the best record we have of his actual words. I think it is pretty clear that Abhidhamma is really commentary though. Also, some of the Suttas may have been composed later. That all gets academic. I like academics. However, Buddhism is a practice. We also have the Agamas, initially recorded in Sanskrit; but extant only in Chinese translation. It, iirc, has its own Abhidharma. There were once other canons, with their own Abhidharmas; but those are lost.
The Mahayana Sutras, as with the the Abhidharmas, purport to be the work of the Buddha. However, I think they [the Mahayana Sutras] were composed later on, around the same they were recorded, and attributed to the Buddha. The Lotus Sutra suggests that it should be 'read' and 'copied.' The Buddha would not have said that; he might have said it should be 'heard' or "listened to" and 'preached.' It appears that the Lotus Sutra was composed at a time when the Sutras were already being written down. Also, some chapters also conflate Subha {beauty} and Shuddha {purity}, This likely occurred because both words were translated into Chinese as 淨 / 净 {jing} / 浄 {jo}.
Tibetan Vajra and Japanese Shingon have esoteric teachings that they do not even necessarily attriibute to Shakyamuni Buddha.Then, we have all the various commentaries. Some of these were attributed to teachers that did not actually write them. My view is that most of these are authentic Buddhism. Nagarjuna proposed a basic test of authentic Buddhist Dharma, called the Four Dharma Seals. These are
- Inconstancy; Anicca / anitya: All compounded phenomena are impermanent.
- Stress; Dukkha: All compounded phenomena are stressful, unsatisfying.
- Emptiness; Sunyatta: All phenomena are empty of an abiding self nature.
- Nibbana / Nirvana: There is an unbinding, a liberation, from Dukkha.
Also, I think authentic Dharma teaches the 4 Noble Truths: Dukkha exists, it is caused by attachment, there is a cessation of Dukkha, the way to this cessation is the 8-fold path. The 8-fold path is often adapted in its distilled form as the Three Cultivations of Higher Ethics, Higher Spirituality, and Higher Discernment -- also given as the three aggregates of Ethics, Concentration, and Discernment.I agree, you do not seem to be hiding your agenda. The teaching of anatta or anatman can be found in Suttas that are every bit as reliable as the Dhammapada. iirc, in the Suttas, the Buddha also talks about self in the conventional or conversational sense.
There is also the concept of Cattaro vipallasa {catur viparyasa} or 四 顚倒 {si diandao / shi tendo}; the four inverted views, distortions, or hallucinations.
- Mistaking or seeking subha 浄 wholesomeness, fortune. purity, attractiveness, desirability}; for or in that which is asubha 不淨 {impure, spiritually ugly, unwholesome, unfortunate}.
- Seeking sukha 樂 {bliss}; in that which is dukkha 苦 or 苦惱 {unsatisfying}.
- Searching for or expecting nicca / niyta 常 {constancy, continuity, eternity}; in that which is anicca / anitya 無常 {inconstant, temporal}.
- Identifying atta / atman 我 {an abiding self}; in that which is anatta / anatman 無我{conditioned ego}.
So, the issue I think we getting at pertains to the 4th distortion. The Mahayana Nirvana Sutra seems to hold that there is a True Self. However, I understand the authors went to great pains to say that this higher selfless self is not the same as the Atman of Brahmanism. If there is such a higher self; it would have to be 'asamskrta' or uncompounded, not anything one would identify with the conventional self mentioned in the Dhammapada.This is my take right now, to which I am non-attached. I apologize for any typos or other errors and reserve the right to change my mind later on. My use of 'I' and 'my' is in no way intended to imply that I possess a permanent abiding self. I yield back the remainder of my timelessness.
This is a misunderstanding of the verses in the Dhammapada, sometimes promoted by Advaita teachers. You can't understand Buddhist philosophy from a few verses, you have to consider the whole teaching. And the idea of selflessness runs straight through it.
What more is necessary?
<O:p</O:p
They are i) the relative truth , ii) the absolute truth and iii) the truth of the middleway
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
As Dhammapada belongs to the teaching of Nikaya, it deals mostly on the realm of relative truth.<O:p</O:p
This does not means that Nikayan teachng do not touch on the other two perspective of the truth. But they generally touch on briefly , there are mainly due to the reason that a) the close disciples of the historical Buddha have already reach the cultivation of arhart , their keen faculty are awared of the content and perspective what the Buddha teaching, even the Buddha did not elaborate them.<O:p</O:p
b) the other disciples who still in their elementary training, are unable to capture the finer content from the other perspective of the truth , hence those teaching are not recorded in fuller detail or they are unable to request the Buddha to elaborate for them.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Mahayana teaching on the other hand dwells fuller in the perspective of absolute truth ( non-duality / emptiness or suyatta ) and the perspective of middle-way.<O:p</O:p
Mahayana master such as Great Teacher Tientai ( Zhi-i ) even took a further step to reveal the principle of mutual inclusiveness of the three truths
<O:p</O:p
Isn't that what is meant by not confusing the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself?
Teachings = finger
Enlightenment = Moon?
o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o gave you good answers.
Buddhism teaches two truths. These are not separate realities; just different ways to look at one reality. In terms of conventional truth, there is a self. However. in terms of ultimate truth. there is no self. I use terms like I, me, and mine. I am in no way implying that 'I' am an eternal, unchanging soul.
There was once a school called Pugglavada or Personalism. They had a similar idea; but did not reject the concept of anatta. FWIG, they proposed that there is a real person that is neither the same as, nor different from, the Five Clinging Aggregates {khandas, skandhas} .
see: Puggalavada: A brief look.
Namaste
I used to live with 3 persons who are members of Mensa (if you dont know what it is look it up) and have childhood friends who are psychiatrist and nurse , respectively in N.Y.
They may spout the word stupid sometimes but all the time they will explain why. I did not see that you justify your abuse.
This in a way makes sense to me.
Thanks Robby for your extensive reply. I thought that my sources claiming that the Dhammapada is the only reliable piece of writing representative of the buddha's teachings are neutral and scholarly enough.
And that all others were written at least 200 years after he passed away. I think for practical reasons its reasonable to say that its going to be very difficult to recreate what the Budhha had in his mind after 2 centuries, dont you think? Time is such a destroyer of things !
Also unlike other people who might say their insights came from revelations from their guru through some transcendental connections, buddhists wont go that way because you dont accept a permanent self : Gautama Buddha is gone forever.
Anyway, if anyone can give me a link to the Dhammapada in Pali, or direct me to its book form in Pali, I'll be very glad. I'll try to translate it even if it takes ages so that I will be satisfied that what I read in english that was translated by buddhists are not translated with great slant on commonly held views on buddhism.
Yes, the denial of the self even in this manifest world is problematic. Buddhists should reorganize the english language for example and turn upside down our penal system.
Anyway, being me I'll meditate and make further studies.
Thanks for bothering with my thread.
The thing is, if he said positive and another said he did say negative, then nothing is said at all, isnt it?
I'm have been meditating for ages, so I'll see in all honesty if at this new phase in my life that if I I plumb the deepest recesses of my being will reveal that there is no self indeed.
I have been following works on consciousness by scientists also, so I'll see if we will get a clue on the reality or unreality of the self.
At the moment for me the proof of the self is existence itself. But I'm open, you know.
I am familiar with Mensa, and idiotic was meant to show that you cannot pass the Gateless Gate with intellect alone -- although the proof will surely be in the pudding.
Blessings, and best wishes in your inquiries, whatever they are.
I simply do not think this is correct. My impression is that many of the Suttas are as old as the Dhammapada. Also, that the Dhammapada quotes from the Suttas. This is from Wiki; I use it only because it is concise; and it saves me a bunch of typing.
‘The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The texts Sutta Nipata, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, Therigatha (Theragatha), Udana, and Jataka tales belong to the early stratum. The texts Khuddakapatha, Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu, Niddesa, Patisambhida, Apadana, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka can be categorized in the later stratum.’
This is from another Wiki article, and is well put:
With all due respect I don't think you're going to be able to outsmart the Buddha.
The Dhammapada is a compilation of various sayings, some of them from the suttas, and some from other sources. Since the Dhammapada uses the suttas as one of its sources, it can't be any older than the suttas.
I know of no serious scholar who believes that the Dhammapada was committed to writing before the suttas. I know of no evidence that would support this.
The Dhammapada exists in several forms. I think we currently have five versions. The three I remember off the top of my head are the Pali version, the Gandhari, and the version that now exists only in Chinese translation. It seems likely that one version served as the basis for the others, but which? It could be one of the existing Dhammapadas, or it could be a version that has been lost. There are differences between all of the existing Dhammapadas, and we have no evidence to indicate which is the original. So even if you had evidence that the Dhammapada is as old as you claim, you would still have the problem of establishing which was the older original and which were the more recent knock offs.
Before you can begin to translate Pali, you're going to need years and years of training. It's not enough to have a copy of the Pali original and a Pali dictionary. You're going to have to learn Pali idioms, which means that you're going to have to master a wide range of Pali texts. Just getting access to the texts will be difficult. Whenever you encounter a translation problem, you're going to need to know where you can find similar phrases and expressions, so that you can compare meanings. People who have studied at the Ph.D. level have attempted this type of translation and have not been successful. Your best bet is a good scholarly translation by a respected Pali translator.
Consider the fact that the Theravadins were the sole caretakers of the Pali canon for many centuries. If they had wanted to alter the text, they could have done so back before it was ever committed to writing, and no one today would be wiser. Add to that the problem of determining which version is the original, and which versions have been altered. Furthermore, many scholars believe that the Dhammapada contains some non-Buddhist material. No matter how long you study Pali, there's no way you can be sure that you're dealing with an unaltered text.
:rocker: