[Nadin Maison]

Hi Kaarine;

I am not sure that we disagree.

I really hope not to. I don't like disagreements. I don't delight into them. It is not my sport. Mine is swimming.

Your post can't be adressed fully by now. It is full of ideas that are needed to take them into serene consideration.

Let me quote some relevant paragraphs... not as an aggressive series about quoting you bringing into combat, please.

Who cared about Einstein's religion, place of birth, or school grades? His theory of special relativity, at least, worked. His theories about general relativity may or may not work. As a result of just the theory of special relativity this world was (and IS) radically changed. The religious believes of Einstein tainted his works and at the end when he refuses to accept randomness at the light of quantum mecanics he said that very sad phrase of "God do not play dice".

As Lazy Eye states; as Element has stated numerous times, there are plenty of Suttas and Sutras which reference incorrect cosmology (as it is understood today), realms and beings and states and processes, powers, and knowledges, all of which defy our conventional, Western, rational, scientific, logical....need I add any more adjectives?...understanding of what's possible. Those cosmologies of Buddha -and not the ones of "Buddhisms"- aren't of the same nature of the astrophysical western development. The cosmologies are means to induce insight about human nature. And yes, they are metaphorical in the "upaya" of Buddha.

For example. There was a post about some demons that are true for Pure land Buddhism. Element here bring them into the realm of the Dhamma showing the metaphorical nature of them to one of the new members here.

A. Claim that a large number of Suttas declared as Sutta by people who specialized in preserving Sutta 2400 years ago are "officially" bogus because we know better. This doesn't fly with me. Disparage them as unscientific; ignore them because they don't help you (the Buddha himself told us to use what we were able to confirm as useful), but don't claim that No, a serious lecture can not disparage them. They are needed, through metaphorical understanding to keep coherent his teachings. As an anthropologist any context has to be considered.


It clearly doesn't fit. This won't work for me, not because I don't want it to work but because it doesn't make much sense that numerous suttas, in their entirety are bogus and, if we then start to argue that "well, the Sutta is, for the most part authentic; however, the insertion of all these references to devas, to lives occurring after the breakup and dissolution of the body, to cosmologies that make no sense...all these are add-ons by bad bad disciples. These are arhats we're talking about, who convened these councils; what motivation would an arhat have to add in references to superstitious phenomena, which the Buddha clearly (allegedly) steered entirely away from. I have to conclude that the Buddha did NOT steer entirely away from it. Not my case. If some sutta is not well understood it is not disparage. It is put aside waiting to the proper moment to be understood. We can not understood everything in an instant. Takes a lot of time and patience the lecture and contemplation of suttas.

B. Even worse, I think, is to take specific references by the Buddha, which appear to have a common 'face value"meaning and argue that they, in fact, have ONLY a less common meaning, ONLY a metaphorical meaning---a being who speaks constantly in metaphor about devas (metaphor for....something), about "the life to come", about the breakup and dissolution of the body after death referring to subsequent consciousness; everything becomes a metaphor; and of course the cosmology used and reused and never challenged by the Buddha. That's metaphor? Yes. In the light of Buddha teachings. If we forget the real aim, seems not. But having in mind the real aim of his teachings, IMO, they are used as metaphors. But maybe for an audience hooked in such believes it is obvious that they do not were taken as such... from this we have the further additions to his teachings.

The Buddha claims to have taught Brahma himself. A metaphor of his deep insight.

They may ALL be irrelevant to our practice as well. No, metaphors are not irrelevant tools for teaching. They are needed means to develop insight. If this was developed at the 100% of his audience... good, but it was not the case. Hundreds of monks were gathered around the Buddha, as it is told, when this special kind of teachings were told. Some could be still cling into those believes as literal.

Yet, my own legal training compels me to evaluate them in toto, in connection with, in context with all of the passages too, for example, where he clearly references birth of a mental state, death of a mental state, for example, where he references the importance of practicing in the here and now, of the importance of NOT speculating on future anything, of the uselessness of developing complex philosophies to explain phenomena, etc. Who iniciates he teaching?, What is the story?, What is the setting?, Who the teaching?, to Whom are the teaching directed?, what is the method of persuasion and under it?, what is the essential teaching?, how does it end? and what does this sutta have to offer me? are the guidelines to see the metaphorical material in each context.

It's not possible to know what the Buddha believed personally about cosmology, future lives, etc. It is possible, however, to make a judgment about what he was attempting to convey to his students, based specifically on their abilities, beliefs, needs, on what would be most effective in pushing them towards the edge of knowledge--toward the most profound. The deepest is quenching dukkha, as quenching craving. And some of them has this perfectly exposed.

To unequivocally assert, however, (that is, to assert as if it's the only logical conclusion) that the Buddha expected that his audience understood his teachings on cosmology and all the other items, set forth above as mere metaphor or as references to scientifically verifiable states of mind in this life, Is the case at the light of overcoming craving.

fails to give proper credence and deference to the multitude of other supernatural and superstitious references in the Suttas. Seems he tried to get ride of superstition with or without the aid of metaphor.


If the Buddha consistently is throwing out reference after reference to supernatural scientifically impossible things as if they're ordinary experience for him then, either they are, or he was deluded, or he was simply not challenging deeply held beliefs of his student/contemporaries. Knowing that the Buddha told in a sutta, to an argumentative priest, that his teaching was not to quarrel. So metaphorical use of skillful means was good to avoid that purpose. But the metaphor, in its nature, would lead into insight leaving alone the pupil to its own verification.

It seems that he at least accepted his students' beliefs (in the sense of not upsetting or challenging them) in many of these areas; Yes.

he knew they took much of it for granted (for example, that Kamma had a definite effect in this life or, after death and dissolution/breakup of the body and , in the next life or in some future life is a pretty mainstream view. When the Buddha used this pretty stock phrase in his great exposition of Kamma I see it as simply accepting and not challenging commonly held belief on this topic, knowing that the real practice of Buddhism, geared towards acquiring wisdom, insight into how we misapprehend phenomena and misunderstand self. Seems to agree here...

The Buddha did not begin teaching in order to shake up people's notions or understanding of their own environment, of after death processes and the rest. He taught to liberate us from our own delusion about having a true self (through leading us to nonconceptual discern the utter lack and impossibility of any such thing), and, in doing so, to free us from all the misery that befalls us due to our ignorance on this subject. Seems we agree here.

If as a result of, what I consider to be a "realist" view regarding the historical Buddha---that he was a creature of his time and culture, and that his views were definitely influenced by it We disagree here Tijample. Kaarine needs to elaborate more here.

---one loses faith in his liberate teachings then that's a tragedy...even if it's just one person. But let's deal honestly with who he was, what he said, what's especially useful, what to pick up from the Suttas and what to perhaps just kind of leave on the side. No. No need to leave aside as understanding evolves slowly. But do not means an acceptance of superstitious believes in literal cosmological issues taken as a kind of ancient astrophysics.

Thanks Tijampel,

Very good post... lots of insight and needed further elaboration.