[esconsise]

My thinking on this subject has been developing during discussions on BWB over the last week or so and I present the following thoughts for comment, including refutation.

The Dhamma as spoken by the Buddha and found in the Pali Canon is monolithic, describing as it does fully and in great detail how one can attain Nibbana. There is no more to be said that can make our knowledge of it more complete. There is no more new research to be done in this field: the Buddha did all there was to be done. However, maybe the way the Dhamma has been propagated through the world and thus kept available for us is the best we humans can do with such material.

Now I am speculating as to why. We do not do this with sciences such as physics and chemistry, because they involve working with items outside the human mind and precisely observing and measuring the results of procedures conducted on those items, creating theories based on these results which are open to exhaustive and painstaking peer review.

Contrariwise, progressing toward Nibbana is ultimately something each individual does fully within their own mind and the results are really only known to each individual. Taking my own case as an example: I have studied the Dhamma and practiced it; my happiness and mental health have improved; I conclude that I have benefitted from the Dhamma. This is empiricism; at least it is if we include the Dhammic idea of the mind sense. There is no doubt in my mind that my belief that I have thus benefitted is true, though if I explained my conviction as fully as possible, it would take up a great deal more space than my nutshell description. But this is still not the same as if the pursuit of the Dhamma were hard science, where I would be able to put my happiness on the table, apply the Dhamma to it in isolation from all other influences, and measure the result precisely. In this sense, though it has much in common with science, the pursuit of the Dhamma is "fuzzy" science. This is what leaves it open to the creation of scriptures that include assertions so preposterous that a similar case in physics or chemistry would rapidly destroy the author's career.

I would suggest that such statements as that the Buddha's tongue was long enough to reach into another world have no place in serious Dhamma study in Western culture in our time. That they were dreamt up at all probably reflects ignorance or arrogance on the part of the author, whose purpose in so doing may be questioned. Perhaps they intended to gain the attention of people who would credit such statements and then turn that attention toward serious Dhamma study; or perhaps they were using that attention to benefit themselves and their own situation in the world.

Or (new thought) perhaps they realised that the only way to propagate or keep the Dhamma alive in their culture was to adorn it in terms that would impress and awe members of that culture.

I wanted to spend more time on this, but I have to go out now, so I will post it. I eagerly await your responses (including brickbats).

[BopeDolaNeone]

.

I would suggest that such statements as that the Buddha's tongue was long enough to reach into another world have no place in serious Dhamma study in Western culture in our time.

This is the part about the tongue in Ch.21 :

He put forth his vast and long tongue which reached upward to the Brahma worlds. From all of his hair pores, he emitted lights of limitless, countless colors, all of which pervasively illuminated the worlds of the ten directions. In the same way, all the Buddhas seated on lion thrones beneath jeweled trees also put forth their vast and long tongues and emitted limitless lights.

When Shakyamuni Buddha and the Buddhas beneath the jeweled trees had manifested their spiritual powers for a full hundred thousand years, they withdrew their tongues.

[NumDusthouh]

.


Perhaps someone could explain the teachings which will be beneficial to me in the previous Lotus Sutra excerpts ?

....not forgetting of course that there's the chapter which is said to be the inspiration for Buddhist monks setting fire to themselves, - Ch 23 if I remember correctly.

[!!Aaroncheg]

Early Buddhism could be pretty misogynist, actually. Still can be, depending on which tradition we're talking about and where.

Good point Cobalt. I haven't heard anyone come up with the argument that different teaching methods might lead to good results in different people. Not considering misogynist people here. Some children learn better at Montessori schools, others, presumably at a school where learning things by heart is the main teaching method. It's also good to look at the result of course, for these might be different on average. In Dharma results I look for flexible, open, empathetic but confident people that attract others and that people (not just Buddhists) ask for advice and support