SuttaCentral
I get your point!
It’s also possible that his two earlier teachers: ‘Alara and Udaka’ may have helped him to understand samadhi-type attainments - jhanas 7/8. Ajahn Brahm seems to believe these teachers were not teaching samma-samadhi. This seems to be a moot-point that appears now and then when Buddhists find nothing better to do with their time. 
I get the strong sense that the Buddha specifically did not do any jhāna practice with his two teachers at all. I therefore conclude that he was either doing only immaterial practice with him, with no practice of the 4 jhānas; or that he didn’t even practice immaterial attainments with them, and that that story (which by the way has no mention of him practicing jhāna with them at all) has come to us in some damaged fashion, perhaps because he practiced somethign else with them and it was later mistakenly thought to be the standard immaterial attainments the Buddha taught.
There’s too much to suggest that the Buddha’s jhāna practice had nothing whatsoever to do with him learning them or training in them under those two teachers.
Do you have a specific question? We have discussed these points many times. The earliest writing in India was Brahmi:
When speaking of the “early Buddhist texts”, of course we are speaking of the oral tradition.
Yes, the oral/chanting tradition that was then turned into an oral and textual tradition when scribes committed it to writing. The Pali texts and, the other early rendering/renderings in what written language?
Pali is the language. The script is Brahmi, as per the Wikipedia article I posted 
Dear Laurence your curiosity is not inappropriate. However, these questions are far from this topic. If you clarify what it is you want to ask, then please start a new thread to address those questions. Specific questions are best in the Q and A category.
I am hesitant to start new threads as they seem to cause inexplicable alarm. My lucky-last attempt went into lock-down before anyone had a chance to comment and be ‘damaged’ as a consequence.
It’s clear I don’t make the ideological-cut. As there is no ‘court of appeal’ in this system, just some kind of ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ it seems I must stop making contributions that ‘apparently’ are unrelated to EBT teachings although, this is news to me.
I hope this brings welcome relief to my long-suffering mitta’s.
It might be better to overcome that. It’s good to keep posts on topic. You may find your answers here but perhaps dont reply to this comment here: https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf
If everyone is letting you know the same thing, it’s time to take a hard look at yourself. No point looking outwards…
Aren’t all bodies psychically created in Buddhism, or have I misunderstood? My understanding is that what is generally referred to as ‘reality’ is the things that we agree on at any given point in time. This understanding is from the ‘consciousness science’ community, in particular Anil Seth. This seems to resonate with my current understanding of the general thrust of the EBTs.
Interesting article: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/consciousness-may-be-product-carefully-balanced-chaos
The body can be ‘represented’ in the mind in this way. However it won’t explain how the Buddha could go unnoticed, as shown above. Short of not having to physically transform one explanation is that the marks are visible (or made visible) on an ‘astral body’ which is mind made ie ‘psychic’ in nature. Or we could just put it down to the making of a myth.
Both heterosexual and homosexual activity is against the rules for monks.
It says in the Vinaya:
"At that time the venerable Upananda, of the Sakya tribe, had two novices, Kandaka and Mahaka; these committed sodomy with each other. The Bhikkhus were annoyed, &c.: ‘How can novices abandon themselves to such bad conduct?’
They told this thing to the Lord Buddha, &c.
‘Let no one, O Bhikkhus(Monks), ordain two novices. He who does, is guilty of a dukkata offence.’" - PTS cs Kd.1.52.1, PTS vp en BD.4.100, Mahavogga 1.52 | Wikipitaka - The Completing Tipitaka | Fandom , SuttaCentral
If heterosexual activity is against the rules for monks obviously homosexual activity would be too.
This does not seem to be a well founded statement to me, but rather a statement of assumption.
If monks are expelled for heterosexual activity why should homosexual activity be allowed? That makes no sense.
This question seems a good one. Because it does not contain assumption. I think this is a better place to start.
If you want to know what rules there were against homosexual activity, you can read about it. There are probably sources right here in this thread for that. But I think it is generally not going to help ones learning to assume what must have been the case based on what one personally feels is logical to assume. That’s my only point here.
I see what you are saying about personal assumptions but it is well-known that there are rules against heterosexual activity and sexual activity in general for monks they get expelled many seem to think that rule is ok but rules against homosexual activity is not ok. There are also rules against singing, dancing, and many other things.
If such a rule is to be abandoned then why not other rules too?
Hi ,
Why not consider this , in the beginning the Buddha Refused to accept women into the sangha right ? If Buddha was born intersex (with ambiguous genitalia) why would Buddha formed a Male sangha ? Very unlikely Buddha was born intersex imo .
That’s doesn’t make much sense .
Because being intersex tells us nothing necessarily about what social roles the person in question will practice.
Some intersex people take to the male role, some to the female, and some to neither. In this they are exactly like those who are distinctly male or female: Within both of those biological groupings as well, some people fit and take to the social role of man, some fit and take to the social role of woman, and some fit and take to neither, but instead are in between, or on any of lots of different paths. Biology is destiny in some ways, but not in this one.
The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya does not prohibit ordination of gay people.
If any monastery following Dharmaguptaka Vinaya would not ordain gay or lesbian people, that’s just because of their misinterpreting the term pandaka or their homophobic and conservative beliefs.
Here is the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya paragraph regarding pandaka :
===========================================
受戒揵度之五
Ordination skandhaka, part 5
爾時有黃門，來至僧伽藍中 ，語諸比丘言：「我欲出家受具足戒。」 諸比丘即與出家受具足戒。受具足戒已 ，語諸比丘言：「 共我作如是如是事來。」 比丘答言 ：「 汝滅去 ！失去 ！何用汝為？」
Once, a paṇḍaka arrived at a monastery (saṅghārāma) and said to the bhikṣus, “I wish to go forth and take full ordination.” Then the bhikṣus let him go forth and take full ordination. Having taken full ordination, he said the bhikṣus, “Let us do such and such a thing together.” Thebhikṣus replied, “Be gone, go away! What is the use of you?”
彼復至守園人及沙彌所語言 ：「 共我作如是如是事來。」 守園人沙彌語言：「汝滅去 ！失去 ！何用汝為？」 彼黃門出寺外，共放牛羊人作婬欲事。
The paṇḍaka then approached the monastic attendants and the śrāmaṇeras, saying, “Let us do such and such a thing together.” The monastic attendants and śrāmaṇeras said, “Be gone, go away, what is the use of you?” The paṇḍaka went out of the monastery and committed sexual acts with cowherds and shepherds.
時諸居士見已譏嫌言：沙門釋子并是黃門，中有男子者共作婬欲事。」 時諸比丘以此因緣白佛，佛言：「 黃門於我法中無所長益，不得與出家受具足戒；若已出家受具足戒應滅擯 。
When lay Buddhists saw this, they said in disgust,“The Śākyan recluses are all paṇḍakas. They commit sexual acts together.” The bhikṣus then went to the Buddha about this matter. The Buddha said, “Paṇḍakas do not benefit from my Dharma. They may not go forth and take full ordination. If they have gone forth and taken full ordination, they are to be expelled.”
是中黃門者，生黃門、犍黃門 、妬黃門、變黃門、半月黃門。生者 ，生已來黃門。犍者 ，生已都截去作黃門。妬者 ，見他行婬已有婬心起。變者 ，與他行婬時失男根變為黃門。半月者，半月能男半月不能男。」
There are various types of paṇḍaka: born paṇḍaka, castrated paṇḍaka, envious paṇḍaka, transformed paṇḍaka and semimonthly paṇḍaka. Born means a paṇḍaka by birth. Castrated means becoming a paṇḍaka due to an act of severing after birth. Envious means becoming sexually aroused only at the sight of others committing sexual acts. Transformed means while committing a sexual act with another, he loses masculine function, and thereby becomes a paṇḍaka. Semimonthly means having male function for half a month, and being impotent for the other half of the month.
===========================================
Some Chinese Buddhists (not all, but some people like Xuānhuà) think because the paṇḍaka have sex with men, all the gay people is paṇḍaka.
I think it’s out of misunderstanding. Since the Vinaya does saying " There are various types of paṇḍaka: born paṇḍaka, castrated paṇḍaka, envious paṇḍaka, transformed paṇḍaka and semimonthly paṇḍaka. ", none of this means gay people.
( born paṇḍaka: napumsakapandaka ; castrated paṇḍaka: opakkamikapandaka; envious paṇḍaka: ussuyapandaka; semimonthly paṇḍaka: pakkhapandaka. There is no mention of asittapandaka in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, only transformed paṇḍaka. Maybe they are the same, and perhaps there are some mistranslations in the Chinese Dharmaguptaka Vinaya when the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya being translated into Chinese. )
And Janet Gyatso pointed out that pandaka are not homosexuals because, “The Vinaya, in fact, goes so far as to distinguish sexual activity between normative males from sexual relations between a socially normative male and a pandaka.”
See note 18: (Defining Buddhism(s): A Reader - Karen Derris, Natalie Gummer - Google 圖書 )
Regarding ordination gay or lesbian people, as far as I know, Chinese Buddhism monasteries usually are reluctant to discuss it, and if they have to answer, they usually discourage it. They maybe accept the ordination, maybe not. I think it depends on the monasteries or situations.
I think the reluctance mainly due to the common social stigma around gay or lesbian people in the Chinese Society.
(p.s. : And Chinese Buddhism monasteries usually discourage lay Buddhists reading and discussing the Vinaya contents and ordination rules, so only the Chinese Buddhism monks are sure of the “unspoken rules” and the actual situation. )