[Flieteewell]

Interestingly, I've just found a recent post from Ajahn Sujato in his blog (Sujato's Blog), which is entitled "Are the Buddha's Views Permanent"

http://sujato.wordpress.com/


.

Thanks Aloka, this is very timely and pertinent to my questions - thanks :hug:

[doxinwasido]

many scholars consider that much of the Digha Nikaya, which includes the Mahanidana Sutta, was not spoken by the Buddha

I didn't knew this.

Do you know, Element, which suttas from the DN can be under this case? Is this the case for DN1?

[Dabdklwu]

Not to supplant Element's erudition, but it's basically DN II and DN III. DN I (Suttas 1-13) is the earlier stratum. At best, DN II + III will be combinatorial - the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is a prime example, combining very old stuff (Buddha's last words, for example) with late additions (Ananda's failure to ask the Buddha to live forever, for example).

The Mahanidana Sutta, referred to earlier, is from DN II.

[rhiniddibiarmr]

Do you know, Element, which suttas from the DN can be under this case?

hi KA

i do not know the DN very well. but i think one can only compare it to other suttas

for example, the Kevaddha Sutta is quite anti-Brahmanical and its only equivalent (to my knowledge) is MN 49, which is also anti-Brahmanical. both of these suttas contain the verse: "consciousness without feature, luminous all round, etc" as a description of Nibbana. so one can draw the conclusion they may be later additions to the suttas

the Mahanidana Sutta is different to the other suttas and the definitions of consciousness & nama-rupa in the Mahanidana Sutta and the exclusion of the six sense media make a strong case for the conclusion that the Buddha did not speak it

there are dozens of suttas that describe consciousness as the sixfold consciousness and only the Mahanidana Sutta describes consciousness in the way it does. (nama-rupa is probably the same)



Maha-nidana Sutta

If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state

If there were no craving at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming

And what are the six sense media? ABSENT from sutta

And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties)

And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?" If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"

And what are fabrications? ABSENT from sutta

"And what is ignorance? ABSENT from sutta Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta and Sammaditthi Sutta

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

[VXHLrsO1]

As Ajahn Sujato discusses in the blog Aloka-D found, due to there not being a chronology in the structure of the Suttas,at times it is difficult to get a context of when teachings were given.

[PeterPatrickJohn]

hi KA

i do not know the DN very well. but i think one can only compare it to other suttas

Thanks Element

Element and Daverupa:

From the DN, the one with which I have given a careful reading is DN1. I feel that this discourse go with the main aim of the teachings of Buddha. Do you think is the case?

[thushioli]

hi, i have never read DN 1, it is too long for me

[ValdisSeroff]

hi, i have never read DN 1, it is too long for me

Oh... well, if you read it one day Element, it would be interesting to know your understandings,

[cxddfrxc]

hi, i have never read DN 1, it is too long for me

??????

I think those moments when I can transcend the grip of wrong or incomplete views and a have a sense of clarity and peace are what keep me going these days - and my friends and family, of course :hug:

[JanetMorris]

From the DN, the one with which I have given a careful reading is DN1. I feel that this discourse go with the main aim of the teachings of Buddha. Do you think is the case?

DN I (including DN 1) is altogether fine, it seems to me, although as with any Sutta - but especially in the Digha - it pays to keep the audience in mind.

Much of DN 1 seems to be deconstructing "yogic intuition" as a valid means of knowledge.

[masterboyz]

Much of DN 1 seems to be deconstructing "yogic intuition" as a valid means of knowledge.

i recall Sujato wrote somewhere the DN was mostly created or used for the purpose of propagating Buddhism to Brahmins/Hindus

[9V42h1eT]

I think that the way the Buddha taught changed during his lifetime -

When he first reached enlightenment he sat for days and was not going to teach due to his concern that he would not be understood.

Then he only taught the path of self liberation as he did not think that people would be ready to take on the Suffering of all beings.

Before his death he taught about continuing on the path.

I think that his worldview iin and of itself did not change as he had reached a complete understanding of all things, but was willing and able to alter how and what he taught based on the needs of his students.

[ivandiadser]

I think that the way the Buddha taught changed during his lifetime -

When he first reached enlightenment he sat for days and was not going to teach due to his concern that he would not be understood.

Then he only taught the path of self liberation as he did not think that people would be ready to take on the Suffering of all beings.

He only taught what is derisively referred to as "the path of self-liberation" because, as he put it, one who is drowning in a cesspit cannot save another.

Before his death he taught about continuing on the path. He never taught a "second or third turning of the wheel of dharma"; those are the later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders.

I think that his worldview iin and of itself did not change as he had reached a complete understanding of all things, but was willing and able to alter how and what he taught based on the needs of his students. But what he taught did not change.

[zawhmqswly]

He only taught what is derisively referred to as "the path of self-liberation" because, as he put it, one who is drowning in a cesspit cannot save another.



He never taught a "second or third turning of the wheel of dharma"; those are the later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders.



But what he taught did not change.

I completely respect the Path of self Liberation as a valid means to work toward Enlightenment. however, I am not sure what you mean when you say "later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders."

Over time as people had time to work with and expand on the Teachings of the Buddha the 3 vehicles developed in a logical and systematic way so that all humans could benifit. One of the great beauties of the Dharma Teachings it that they are able to adapt to and encompass such a with range

To me this does not make those who came latter outsiders nor does it make the Teachings any less authentic.

All the Best

[Illisezek]

I completely respect the Path of self Liberation as a valid means to work toward Enlightenment. however, I am not sure what you mean when you say "later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders."

hi KY

Stuka is probably taking a position from what is reported in the Pali suttas

in the Pali suttas, it is not reported the Buddha said all beings have Buddha-Nature or all sentient beings would be saved

when asked whether all sentient beings would be saved, it is reported in the Pali the Buddha remained silent

so what Stuka seems to be inferring the Pali view differs from the Mahayana view

where as the Buddha did not take a position on these matters, by keeping silent, it seems Stuka is taking & voicing a position

regards



Uttiya, having directly known it, I teach the Dhamma to my disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method & for the realization of Nibbana.

And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method & for the realization of Nibbana, will all the [whole] world be led [to release] or a half of it or a third?

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

Uttiya Sutta

[CKDIWEQ]

hi KY

Stuka is probably taking a position from what is reported in the Pali suttas

in the Pali suttas, it is not reported the Buddha said all beings have Buddha-Nature or all sentient beings would be saved

in the Pali suttas, when ask whether all sentient beings would be saved, it is reported the Buddha remained silent

so what Stuka seems to be saying the Pali view differs from the Mahayana view

regards

That is very Interesting to think about. I am in the Kagyu Lineage of TB and tend to focus in that direction due to that.

Do you have and links / references that you can send?

Thanks

[JessicaLin]

hi KY

i posted a reference above and post another below

regards



Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born & growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.

Ariyapariyesana Sutta

[ferelrossi]

hi KY

i posted a reference above and post another below

regards

Thanks !

[Rememavotscam]

I am not sure what you mean when you say "later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders."

Stuka's phraseology probably comes from the following Pali sutta

...in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.

But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

Ani Sutta

[abouthotels]

It's been said that He never taught a "second or third turning of the wheel of dharma"; those are the later contrivances of Brahmins, tantrists and other outsiders. . ("He" refers to Sakyamuni Buddha). Quote is from reply by Stuka.

Firstly, I'd be perfectly happy if Arya Nagarjuna personally wrote the Perfection of Wisdom and if Arya Asanga (with or without help from Lord Maitreya) penned 3rd Turning of the Wheel Sutras pertaining to wisdom instead of just commenting upon them. It has no bearing whatsoever as to whether the teachings contained in these works are sound or whether they are worth studying or not. I also think the Suttas of the Pali Canon are worth relying on and should be studied by Mahayanists; I'd like to see a greater trend in this direction; so I have no preference; I am interested in gaining correct view and in instructions that help liberate.

Secondly, I have no faith that all or most of the Pali Canon consists of the actual speech of the Buddha. Indeed the person who made this quote doesn't consider large parts of the Pali Canon to be the spoken words Buddha either (at least that's what I've read her/him say), since it's full of superstitious, yet entertaining stories about the Buddha's past lives, as well as struggles with demons, predictions, teachings in other realms, a declaration that he could have extended his life a really long time if he'd been asked, and the like.

Is it reasonable that someone in 2011 can accurately pick and choose what was totally authentic within the Pali Canon and what was just made up, and then, with the same degree of surety, declare all teachings not contained in the 3 baskets as DEFINITELY not the Buddha's words? Recently, for example, this same person decided that a particular Sutta that he didn't agree with probably wasn't spoken by the Buddha---it just didn't sound like something he'd say. That's fine, but if the Pali Canon is so filled with dubious content then why not simply examine works from all three turnings based on whether they make sense or not.
Go ahead and attack the Heart Sutra and explain why it makes no sense; this would do far more to advance debate across traditions than to merely reject all writings not from the Pali Canon as having no merit. I would enjoy debating on that basis rather than on the basis of whether the Heart Sutra is a suitable topic for debate by two different types of Buddhists (if I'm to even be considered a Buddhist---perhaps not by some here).

Now, as to the assertions in the quote above regarding the origins of the 2nd and 3rd turning:

These works have nothing to do with Tantra nor did anyone who wrote them, assuming they were written by others, practice Tantra. Read Davidson on the introduction of Tantra into Indian Buddhism (but any other scholar would say essentially the same thing; it was a process that didn't really begin until the 5th century at the earliest, more likely the 6th century). All the 2nd and 3rd turning Sutras occurred hundreds of years earlier. They had been translated and were being taught in China and many other places well before Tantra began being practiced by Buddhists. Moreover the subject matter is completely different.

Also Brahmins didn't write the 2nd or 3rd turnings. They disagreed on all the fundamental points, and, especially with regard to the 2nd Turning, which is the basis for the Middle Way schools, and is a clear refutation of all Brahmin schools extant at the time, because it rejects any basis whatsoever, any essence, any soul, any self, and also rejects nihilism completely. The only Brahmin teacher who taught anything like this, Sankhara (who co-opted much of what the Buddha taught) wasn't born until at least 450-500 years after these Sutras had been commented upon. And even Sankara couldn't get away from positing an existent of sorts (union with Brahman), which was rejected by the 2nd Turning.

There's simply no concordance between these philosophies and that of any then extant Brahmin tradition; Arya Nagarjuna spends most of his time in the Root text on the Perfection of Wisdom and the 70 Stanzas on emptiness debunking Brahmin theories of that day through showing how their arguments result in absurd consequences. He doesn't refute a single teaching of the Buddha in his works----because he was a Buddhist who accepted the teachings of the Buddha. Yet he spends most of the time dealing with a mythical opponent----yes, that's the Brahmins he's refuting

As for the tag of "outsiders",firstly, those who commented on these works were mostly scholars at Nalanda university, the largest Buddhist university in the world, and had studied the Pali Canons extensively; for most of this period both Suttas and Sutras were studied, though not necessarily with equal emphasis by all monks. To be sure, there were divisions; yet the Pali Canons have always been considered fundamental and correct teachings by the Mahayana.

To say that the works themselves, if written by others, were the works of any of those three categories is equally foolish, especially if you read the works. They refute the nihilist and eternalist arguments made by Brahmins (here I am speaking specifically of 2nd Turning works and, additionally the 3rd Turning works from which the Yogacharya tradition was born---those focusing on perfection of wisdom.

The works I've referenced all uphold the fundamental teachings of the Buddha; they basically extend the idea of selflessness of the personal self to all phenomena (the Buddha stated that things lack any essence of their own...they lack a self); there are differences between the 2nd and 3rd turning with regard to some kind of purified mind as an underlying basis (suchness) and also with regard to the idea of a storehouse consciousness (where karmic seeds are stored; Nagarjuna rejected this as a kind of eternalism); Madyamika Prasangika refuses to accept any basis at all; they prefer that we always stand in quicksand; any existent is a crutch.

These are not topics that the Buddha expressed disagreement with; he didn't express this concept in the same way in his teachings; his aim was personal liberation; analyzing the arising(s) that one calls "I", the inherently/self-sufficiently existing self, the truly existent self, whatever you want to call it is enough to achieve this state. He had no interest in proving that there were really part-less particles or truly existent atoms; those arguments were made by various schools well after the Buddha died. The Buddha also used examples from the phenomenal world not to prove the existence of material objects, but to make his teachings accessible.