DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**KimLinbert** · 06-28-2011, 03:36 AM

Mark,

The phrase originated with Nagarjuna. We know the context of its origin and the meaning it was designed to convey. This is already discussed in this thread (and a couple of other recent ones here). The Buddha did not teach it.

Until they were written down, the Pali Suttas were memorized and passed on with as much effort as possible given to avoid the "chinese whispers" influence by folks who were highly committed and who had nothing better to do.

That things arise due to causes and conditions is irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose of eradicating the asavas and the suffering they generate. This has also been pointed out here.

The question of "inherent existence-or not" is not a "window into the Buddha's teachings". the Buddha himself pointed out that such speculations were meanigless to the Dhamma. It is an irrelevant tangent. And it does take the opposite of the "inherent existence", and we can see its use as meaning precisely that all over the place in "mahayana" writings and discourse.

But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering?

Though not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering.

The point I was trying to make, per the Lankavatara quote, was that it seems a good idea both to understand what the Buddha actually taught (and to some extent, what later respected commentators taught), and also to know whether or not a particular teaching is relevant and helpful to one's own particular situation, or to someone else's.

Which may or may not be similar to the point you were making, I'm not quite sure.

06-28-2011, 03:36 AM	#27
KimLinbert Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	Mark, The phrase originated with Nagarjuna. We know the context of its origin and the meaning it was designed to convey. This is already discussed in this thread (and a couple of other recent ones here). The Buddha did not teach it. Until they were written down, the Pali Suttas were memorized and passed on with as much effort as possible given to avoid the "chinese whispers" influence by folks who were highly committed and who had nothing better to do. That things arise due to causes and conditions is irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose of eradicating the asavas and the suffering they generate. This has also been pointed out here. The question of "inherent existence-or not" is not a "window into the Buddha's teachings". the Buddha himself pointed out that such speculations were meanigless to the Dhamma. It is an irrelevant tangent. And it does take the opposite of the "inherent existence", and we can see its use as meaning precisely that all over the place in "mahayana" writings and discourse. But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering? Though not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering. The point I was trying to make, per the Lankavatara quote, was that it seems a good idea both to understand what the Buddha actually taught (and to some extent, what later respected commentators taught), and also to know whether or not a particular teaching is relevant and helpful to one's own particular situation, or to someone else's. Which may or may not be similar to the point you were making, I'm not quite sure.
	Quote