[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

.

I was wondering if anyone had any comments about this article --'It's Time' by Ajahn Sujato (of Santi Forest Monastery Australia)


IT’S TIME -A NEW PARADIGM FOR READING BUDDHISM

It’s time. We need a new paradigm. Buddhism is suffering from schizophrenia; there is a split in consciousness between the historical and the mythic conceptions of the origin of the Dhamma. For 2500 years Buddhism has been constantly changing, adapting, evolving; yet the myths of the schools insist that the Dhamma remains the same.

All existing schools of Buddhism justify their idiosyncratic doctrines mythologically; this is what all religions do. Thus the Theravada insists that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha in Tāvatiṁsa heaven during his seventh rains retreat. The Mahayana claims that the Mahayana sutras were written down in the time of the Buddha, preserved in the dragon world under the sea, then retreived by Nagarjuna 500 years later. Zen claims authority from an esoteric oral transmission outside the scriptures descended from Maha Kassapa, symbolized by the smile of Maha Kassapa when the Buddha held up a lotus.

All of these are myths, and do not deserve serious consideration as explanations of historical truth. Their purpose, as myths, is not to elucidate facts, but to authorize religious convictions.
What is myth? In my opinion, all the old myths – and here I’m speaking primarily of those originating before the 1st millenium BCE – were originally inspired by true events.

They were the news, the gossip, the family sagas of the day. They came to life in the hands of the storytellers and bards. The stories that survived were those that struck a chord in consciousness. Each time they were retold, the tellers would embellish or alter a little; and when the changes resonated with the audience they would be passed on, and so the myths evolved by a sort of natural selection of thought, a little bird of story soaring in the sky of the mind. There was no question of any individual deliberately creating their own stories. The myths were communal creations. This is why they offer such wonderfully direct insight into the consciousness of the times.

There seems to not yet have been the idea of an objective standard of truth; no distiction between how things could be, or should be, and how they really are. There was, therefore, no question of the myths being taken as literal, objective truth – the tellers of the stories would not have understood what that meant. The myths were projections of the people’s fears, desires, hopes, joys, and anguishes into the world outside.

But in the ‘axial age’ around the middle of the 1st millenium BCE a new idea began to be born. Knowledge became something that was not just inherited, but reflected upon and consciously revised. A new rational consciousness emerged, supplanting the old mythic consciousness. The most brilliant of the rational cultures were the Greeks, specializing in external science, and the Indians, specializing in inner science.

Both realized that truth is an elusive thing and so they devised special techniques for its apprehension; in Greece, reason and logic; and in India the science of meditative insight. Either way, myth would never be the same again. continued :

http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/its-time/

[Finanziamento]

" What is myth? In my opinion, all the old myths – and here I’m speaking primarily of those originating before the 1st millenium BCE – were originally inspired by true events. "

This sits well with my position too ..... sometimes significant moments have magical qualities, which in relating to others can become of mythical status.

[pymnConyelell]

Also myths are for gathering together people in the need for believing in something [religion?] that can give them some sort of meaning to their lifes. When we do not need to "be given" meanings, myths will remain just as they are... myths.

[kathy]

This writer is really taking on a big task. I hope it is appreciated. I think that Myth conveys truths at a level sadly missed by people who merely take things literally. I was working on a book project having to do with the story of the Buddha, and looking over where his dad, King Suddhodana decides that Prince Siddhartha should grow up never seeing anything unpleasant. And it dawned on me, the message in this--how we all try to block out the negative stuff, and how that can't possibly work. Even a king can't do it! And then later, only when Siddhartha comes into contact with suffering is realization even possible. So, of course this could be explained in a few sentences but when it is part of the whole story it is much more vivid, and probably easier to remember and pass down verbally.

One of the unique things about Buddhism is that it doesn't matter if the stories are factual or not. We don't have to believe in a virgin birth --or a white elephant with six tusks-- to validate the Dhamma. It is a method that can be tested directly by anyone who practices it.

[Edwardthe_third]

Most of this stuff is common sense that people know but choose to ignore. Nice to see someone putting in the effort to do some actual legwork though. I used to study from all the traditions and always got the sense that the suttas in the Pali Canon were the real deal.

[UpperMan]

...the suttas in the Pali Canon were the real deal.

Sure Cloud...

[MrsGoo]

My opinion, of course! All words are just pointing. I respect all of the traditions and their teachings, except when the teaching is exclusionary of other traditions or claims superiority.

[RBJamez]

To me, Ajahn Sujato sounds like he is arguing to establish a literal dogmatism based on his literal readings of the suttas & the Vinaya.

Many individuals may have their sectarian views, including myself, but my view is they should be regarded merely as such, i.e, "sectarian", even if they do conform with the suttas.

If we are not aware what I am suggesting, I see the Ajahn Brahm perspective is a clinical conformity to the Dhamma-Vinaya, where a heavy boundary is established between the ordained and the householders.

It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this."

"This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."

"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."

Anathapindikovada Sutta In our modern age, with its wider experience, challenges & education, monks such as Ajahn Buddhadasa & Ajahn Chah made the decision to break down this traditional distinction between the ordained & the laity and impart the core Dhamma which traditionally was withheld from the laiety. However, the impression I gain, accurately or inaccurately, is Brahm & Sujato have decided to restore it because they believe it is following the Dhamma-Vinaya strictly.

So, although Ajahn Sujato may sound liberal in his views, for me, I sense he may potentially be asserting a very strong dogmatism. For me, his approach is far too intellectual. It is the stuff of PDH thesis rather than the 'experiential' Ajahn Chah tradition.

Kind regards

[Dildos]

For me, his approach is far too intellectual. It is the stuff of PDH thesis rather than the 'experiential' Ajahn Chah tradition.

Yes, I can definately appreciate your viewpoint Element - and I must confess I do get a little lost with some of it myself ....its interesting to read though!

I think its of benefit when someone isn't afraid to say publicly that some of the later additions to the teachings were pretty obviously not from the lips of the historical Buddha.

[Goseciwx]

Do I have any comments? Yes, this time (the last

[sessoorale]

Logical and dry... does this mean the alternative is illogical and wet? The Dhamma is supremely logical, so I wonder what "dry" means in the sense you've used it.

(Illogical and wet - sounds like baptism!)