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

**Precturge** · 05-22-2011, 08:51 AM

My guess is that Pali Dhamma is simply the Dhamma as understood from the Pali Canon, and buddhadhamma is the "essence" of those teachings.

I like the term Pali Dhamma which IMO, it could be the same as to say the Buddhadhamma because, as always, I feel that the Pali is the nearest teaching to the historical Buddha... Yes, I know, all the fingers point to the moon... but each tradition has made a personal interpretation from the Pali. The Pali, as it was left and recorded, is at the source of all traditions understanding that modifications were made from it and not to it.

How it was recorded, who recorded it, how was taken into a scripture do not detract from the fact that it is the first in time.

In this way, if the historical Buddha was a single person or a group of sages it is not so important as to know that the Pali is the first set, in the historical arrow of time, to state a really new systematized interpretation of the anatta nature of mind and reality (namarupa) grouped coherently in terms of time, style, date, language and issues clearly exposed to everybody.

For example, and not knowing much about Bible, and giving a wrong opinion, it seems to be a heterogeneous group of diverse books in terms of their culture, origin, language, literature style, teachings and historical time; also we have several "Bibles" while we have got just one and only one Pali Canon.

Traditions from Theravada to Vajrayana and the many Zen and Cha'an schools have their own Canonical oeuvres like the Shobogenzo for the Soto. The Shobogenzo is Canonical in terms of a "state of art" for Soto practitioners. Any Soto has the Shobogenzo as its fundamental Canonical set of instructions. It is not a Buddhadhamma but a Dhamma in its own value even when it is assumed that Dogen Zengi was a Buddha because of his enlightenment through his meditative approach but not because following the Canon Pali but taking out from it his teaching.

This can seem arrogant but I think are important distinctions where historical precision can clarify rather than confuse.

People fear difference and distinction because we are not aware that having set differences we have a huge tendency to make the mistake of doing hierarchies from them. Once we are aware of this, differences are always welcome. I really feel there are important differences from a Canon Pali and the Shobogenzo. Because first in time, I consider, it is fare to say Buddhadhamma for the former and Dhamma for the later.

05-22-2011, 08:51 AM	#5
Precturge Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 585 Senior Member	My guess is that Pali Dhamma is simply the Dhamma as understood from the Pali Canon, and buddhadhamma is the "essence" of those teachings. I like the term Pali Dhamma which IMO, it could be the same as to say the Buddhadhamma because, as always, I feel that the Pali is the nearest teaching to the historical Buddha... Yes, I know, all the fingers point to the moon... but each tradition has made a personal interpretation from the Pali. The Pali, as it was left and recorded, is at the source of all traditions understanding that modifications were made from it and not to it. How it was recorded, who recorded it, how was taken into a scripture do not detract from the fact that it is the first in time. In this way, if the historical Buddha was a single person or a group of sages it is not so important as to know that the Pali is the first set, in the historical arrow of time, to state a really new systematized interpretation of the anatta nature of mind and reality (namarupa) grouped coherently in terms of time, style, date, language and issues clearly exposed to everybody. For example, and not knowing much about Bible, and giving a wrong opinion, it seems to be a heterogeneous group of diverse books in terms of their culture, origin, language, literature style, teachings and historical time; also we have several "Bibles" while we have got just one and only one Pali Canon. Traditions from Theravada to Vajrayana and the many Zen and Cha'an schools have their own Canonical oeuvres like the Shobogenzo for the Soto. The Shobogenzo is Canonical in terms of a "state of art" for Soto practitioners. Any Soto has the Shobogenzo as its fundamental Canonical set of instructions. It is not a Buddhadhamma but a Dhamma in its own value even when it is assumed that Dogen Zengi was a Buddha because of his enlightenment through his meditative approach but not because following the Canon Pali but taking out from it his teaching. This can seem arrogant but I think are important distinctions where historical precision can clarify rather than confuse. People fear difference and distinction because we are not aware that having set differences we have a huge tendency to make the mistake of doing hierarchies from them. Once we are aware of this, differences are always welcome. I really feel there are important differences from a Canon Pali and the Shobogenzo. Because first in time, I consider, it is fare to say Buddhadhamma for the former and Dhamma for the later.
	Quote