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

**gDGwm8BC** · 10-04-2011, 02:22 PM

sure

but what about a similar superstition that atman (self) found or revealed the Dhamma?

for example, the Buddha is reported to have said:

according to Shinichi Tsuda, such verses are about the ontological basis of revelation

for example, are the Buddha's teachings personal relevations about phenomenological (subjective) experience or are they teachings about the inherent (ontological; objective) nature of phenonema that has been revealed/uncovered?

Does the Pali Canon say that the atman revealed the dhamma? If some Buddhist hold that superstition, that doesn't make it the official Buddhist doctrine, does it?

I don't see how any of this is related to a claim that the dhamma was revealed to Gautama or anyone else by a supernatural being or process. The translation you cited uses "all dhammas revealed themselves". Are you equating the dhammas as supernatural beings or suggesting that the Pali suttas do so? I'm not sure where you're seeing a conflict with what I wrote.

And there are alternate interpretations of patubhavanti dhamma that don't use the word the ambiguous, equivocal word "revealed", which can imply conscious agency and intent, as well as not.

See: http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=v...dhamma&f=false If I say that I had a "revelation" during meditation, I'm not suggesting that a higher being gave me any information.

If I say that the sunrise revealed a distant mountain, I'm not implying conscious agency or intent on the part of the sunrise.

I don't see a problem with this. It's the conventional use of language, which is itself a convention. What am I missing?

10-04-2011, 02:22 PM	#14
gDGwm8BC Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 563 Senior Member	sure but what about a similar superstition that atman (self) found or revealed the Dhamma? for example, the Buddha is reported to have said: according to Shinichi Tsuda, such verses are about the ontological basis of revelation for example, are the Buddha's teachings personal relevations about phenomenological (subjective) experience or are they teachings about the inherent (ontological; objective) nature of phenonema that has been revealed/uncovered? Does the Pali Canon say that the atman revealed the dhamma? If some Buddhist hold that superstition, that doesn't make it the official Buddhist doctrine, does it? I don't see how any of this is related to a claim that the dhamma was revealed to Gautama or anyone else by a supernatural being or process. The translation you cited uses "all dhammas revealed themselves". Are you equating the dhammas as supernatural beings or suggesting that the Pali suttas do so? I'm not sure where you're seeing a conflict with what I wrote. And there are alternate interpretations of patubhavanti dhamma that don't use the word the ambiguous, equivocal word "revealed", which can imply conscious agency and intent, as well as not. See: http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=v...dhamma&f=false If I say that I had a "revelation" during meditation, I'm not suggesting that a higher being gave me any information. If I say that the sunrise revealed a distant mountain, I'm not implying conscious agency or intent on the part of the sunrise. I don't see a problem with this. It's the conventional use of language, which is itself a convention. What am I missing?
	Quote