[benderkoz]

Historically, Theravada has tended to take a dim view of Mahayana, regarding it as a mere degeneration of the pure teachings. I wonder why Sujato doesn't mention the abhidhamma here.

[Aleksis]

I wonder why Sujato doesn't mention the abhidhamma here.

Hi Soundtrack

It almost seems to me that you might be mocking Ajahn Sujato !

I recommend you read his essay about the Abhidhamma commentaries, called "The Mystique of the Abhidhamma" in which he says :

"I suggest that the abhidhamma is most profitably considered, not as a psychology or as a philosophy, but as a mystical cult.

Its complexity arises, not from the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, but from the need to create an impression of unimpeachable authority."


http://sites.google.com/site/santipa...ftheabhidhamma


However a further discussion of abidhamma in this thread would derail the present topic. Thanks.

[g4YthYXx]

Greetings,

...To disguise ones writing as the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha shouldn't be an issue so long as the one doing so is also truly a Buddha, and is using skillful means to deliver the message.

Except that it is disingenuous and this disingenuosity speaks volumes of those who would willingly instigate and perpetuate such lies - and let's be honest, that's what knowingly stuffing one's own words into the Buddha's (or any of the early arahants') mouth is. Lies are not skilful, for they are not Right Speech.

If something has been composed by someone else, they should have the integrity and honesty to be upfront about it, and let the audience decide whether they are prepared to take it as authoratative, on its own merits, and according to their own reason.

This criticism isn't exclusive to Mahayana either - Theravada is not free from such chicanery, as the above example of the Abhidhamma demonstrates. It is unfortunate that deliberate lies have been made throughout history, but on the flipside, it is good that modern scholarship is helping to untangle the falsehoods perpetuated by Buddhist traditions, so that the genuine spiritual seeker, interested in the Buddha's own teachings, arguably has a better chance of finding it (or something closely approximating it) now in the 21st century than at any point over the last 2000 years.

Metta,
Retro.

[Morageort]

Except that it is disingenuous and this disingenuosity speaks volumes of those who would willingly instigate and perpetuate such lies - and let's be honest, that's what knowingly stuffing one's own words into the Buddha's (or any of the early arahants') mouth is.

If something is composed by someone else, they should have the integrity and honesty to be upfront about it, and let the audience decide whether they are prepared to take it as authoratative, on its own merits, and according to their own reason.

This criticism isn't exclusive to Mahayana either - Theravada is not free from such chicanery, as the above example of the Abhidhamma demonstrates.

All this is assuming you know and understand the motives of those involved, and that those motives were necessarily dishonest.

As various scholars have proposed, however, the early Mahayanists -- or, rather, the various groups of monks and nuns out of which Mahayana developed -- likely took it as a given that a meditator can attain visionary states in which the Buddha appears and provides teachings.

Couple this assumption with a strongly devotional type of practice, focused on the world-transcending qualities of the Buddha (as opposed to Shakyamuni the historical personage), and you have much of the basis already for what later became Mahayana, it seems to me.

[ChebuRAtoR]

Greetings Lazy Eye,

As various scholars have proposed, however, the early Mahayanists -- or, rather, the various groups of monks and nuns out of which Mahayana developed -- likely took it as a given that a meditator can attain visionary states in which the Buddha appears and provides teachings.

Then, in the interests of integrity, just like the Elders said "Thus have I heard", they too should say "Thus has been revealed to me in a vision" or so forth. At least that would be honest (even if potentially delusional).

Since they didn't, any retrospective scholarly justification for these actions is mere apologetics... defending "tradition".

Metta,
Retro.

[Ternneowns]

We weren't around to see what happened exactly and how, so judgments about motive and integrity are speculative. Mahayana teachings developed over a long period of time, among disparate groups and sometimes across large geographical distances. It was some time before any of them got written down. The Mahayana sutras tend to be a patching together -- a suturing, if you will -- of diverse material.

Oral literature tends to work differently from its written equivalents in that it relies on various narrative and mnemonic devices to aid in the transmission from speaker to hearer. This is also true of the Pali Canon, which has different "strata" -- some likely closer to the actual words of the Buddha than others.

There's no real basis for accusations of dishonesty.

[spamkillerj]

The opening post asks us to consider what Shakyamuni is known to have taught in Theravada as recorded in the Pali Canon ( along with some other writing whose author is not so clearly identified ) compared to what may or may not have been taught by him in later Mahayana, as recorded in Sutras. Focus on what can not be known for sure many hundreds of years later seems a pointless exercise which even if could be ascertained would add nothing to the experience of the Dhamma (Dharma ). For me the value in the Pali Canon, as with the Heart Sutra et al, is not in who spoke it rather in the message.

[triardwonvada]

Greetings Lazy Eye,

There's no real basis for accusations of dishonesty.

On that matter we'll have to differ.

One can follow and promote a bodhisattva path respectfully, without replacing the Buddha's words with one's own, and without slandering Buddhavacana by regarding it as "hina" (low, dispicable, inferior, vulgar, garbage). For examples as to how this could be done, see:

A Treatise on the Paramis: From the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka by Acariya Dhammapala
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel409.html

Uttama Purisa Dīpanī (A Manual of the Excellent Man) - Venerable Ledi Sayādaw
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Ledi/Uttama/uttama.html

Metta,
Retro.

[suilusargaino]

Greetings,

Focus on what can not be known for sure many hundreds of years later seems a pointless exercise which even if could be ascertained would add nothing to the experience of the Dhamma (Dharma ). For me the value in the Pali Canon, as with the Heart Sutra et al, is not in who spoke it rather in the message.

It's a slippery slope on two counts...

Firstly, the next step beyond saying "we can't be 100% sure what the Buddha really said" is to neglect the scholarship that tells us what is most likely to be most ancient, and to regard anything said in the name of the Dharma as being on par in terms of legitimacy - thereby placing Buddhavacana on par with intentional and deliberate falsehoods, opening the door for any matter of shamanic, tantric voodooism in the name of "we can't be 100% sure that Buddha didn't really teach this". Thus, the rise of the sham Dhamma that Aloka-D's earlier sutta post warned us of.

Secondly, placing the value in "the message" means you are putting yourself in a position to make an evaluation of "the message". On what criteria would you do this? On what criteria would you determine that falsehoods have equal or more value than Buddhavacana? Until one is enlightened, how does one know if certain teachings are liberative, or if they just "feel good"? You need to go beyond to the other side to know... and that's where placing reliance on what the Buddha taught, as best as we can determine it, is far better than opening the doors to rank subjectivity and personal proclivity, nevermind ego-driven charlatans and liars.

As they say, it's good to have an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out the side in the process.

Metta,
Retro.

[AntonioMQ]

My very point is that we do not need to have certainty of what the Lord Buddha actually said to see that both traditions share a common set of fundamental understandings, the truth of which are verifiable through our own experiences.

[LasTins]

Greetings Andy,

Well of course, you may do as you please, but the fact that two traditions "share a common set of fundamental understandings" is in itself no more convincing as an argument for "truth" than that Christianity and Catholicism "share a common set of fundamental understandings".

Speaking for myself, my refuge lies with the Buddha, his Dhamma, and the noble Sangha... not with any "tradition" or sect. Of course, each to their own.

Metta,
Retro.

[GOLAGLULT]

All schools of Buddhism accept the Nikayas/Agamas and the Vinaya as authentic. The emergence and developments seem consistent with response to the changing cultural, social, and religious environments that Buddhism moved into.

[PharmaDrMan]

Greetings to you also Retro,

My refuge also lies in the Triple Gem - my practice is influenced by the tradition I practice with.

[fil_nurser]

All schools of Buddhism accept the Nikayas/Agamas and the Vinaya as authentic. The later emergence and developments seem consistent with response to the changing cultural, social, and religious environments that Buddhism moved into.

In my very limited understanding, an important factor was a shift in the meaning of "the Buddha" -- from a historical person (who gave teachings within a particular lifespan) to a transcendent, cosmic figure (who continues to teach sentient beings in the myriad worlds).

However, it would be wrong to regard this simply as a later innovation, as there is some basis for it in the nikayas and it was likely taken up by followers in the years after Shakyamuni Buddha's parinirvana. The issues under debate here go back a long way!

[jstizzle]

Yes, my current teacher has a broader scope of the idea of the Buddha's teachings and , as would be expected !! as we chose our teacher/s, this sits well with me also.

[Frierlovene]

What I like so much about this forum is that individuals are interested in dialogue and learning from each other. I think as a group we are evidence that people of differing views can communicate, practice, and grow together.

[Gulauur]

My comment was not in deference or in relation to yours, as I recall.

Ok. I just thought it was since you quoted me

[mireOpekrhype]

Greetings,

What I like so much about this forum is that individuals are interested in dialogue and learning from each other. I think as a group we are evidence that people of differing views can communicate, practice, and grow together.

Yes, it is good when participants in discussion (to quote a footballing analogy) are able to "play the ball - not the man".... or in other words, be able to share their experiences or make an coherent argument without resorting to personal attack.

Metta,
Retro.

[drislerfottor]

All schools of Buddhism accept the Nikayas/Agamas and the Vinaya as authentic. The emergence and developments seem consistent with response to the changing cultural, social, and religious environments that Buddhism moved into.

Yes, I think you're right. But that doesn't mean that they all follow the Vinaya rules, of course. In Korea and Japan, there are orders that allow the monks/nuns to marry. Actually encourage it. Also, many such temples are actually for-profit.

[OccabsLam]

If I remember right, the OP was not asking about how to practice Dhamma. He was talking about the credibility of later texts. Thus, the reply.

Hi again Deshy, I have had a look back at the discussion and hope I am not confusing the matter even more here - my point was that the best way to determine credibility is in how any teaching lines up with practice ... teachings which aren't directly verifiable are of limited value for me - interesting as they are, especially for dialogue and discussion.