Does the Pali Canon convey the authentic teachings of the Buddha?

The Watercooler
,
86

If one can move beyond a desire/clinging for clarity, then doubt and confusion also fade :slight_smile:

This level of detail is really getting too bogged down in the unknowables and endless speculation. I think this is especially easy to confuse when using words that can mean multiple things . For me the essence lies in the part of awakening that concerns seeing things as they truly are - freedom from all conditioning - absolute understanding of non-self > even more that there is actually no self… but that the acts needed for living are viewed free of conditioning … so there is neither desire to live nor absence of desire to live… no interference.

But really this is 3 levels too detailed to spend much time on - it becomes just beliefs and opinions. :smiley:

4 Likes
87

This is a quote from a Buddhist scripture that is later than what is generally studied on this forum.

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

“These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbāna-elements.”

The text is then ended with a section in verse:

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.

(Iti 44, Nibbānadhātusutta)

All in all, in the text, the Buddha speaks of two nibbānadhātuyo, or “nirvāṇa-elements”. A discussion about exactly what dhātu, or “element”, is in this context would probably be very interesting.

Terminological finesse aside, it seems nirvāṇa can occur with or without the “residu[al]”.

5 Likes
88

Hi Irene. It seems like you may be concerned with something I’ve struggled with since first attending retreats and studying suttas: that is, what is nibbana as taught by the Buddha? Is it simply annihilation, which is somewhat synonymous with extinguishment? Or something else? The view of annihilationism seems to be clearly condemned by the Buddha in the suttas, and it seems most people agree with that. However, I’ve heard teachers and others agree with that condemnation on one hand, then later say things that seem to express the view of annihilationism, which was confusing.

Anyway, two things that have been helpful to me recently that might be helpful to you:

  1. the Buddha taught that nibbana and the path of the holy life is subtle. If the truth is an arahant is simply extinguished at death, that would not be subtle and sounds a lot like annihilation. Fortunately, the Buddha had more to say on the subject, which is well-summarized by Bikkhu Bodhi.

  2. Bikkhu Bodhi’s paper on nibbana: https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books16/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Nibbana.pdf

One of the parts of the paper I really appreciate is how Bikkhu Bodhi points out that the Buddha described nibbana in both positive and negative terms – not just the end of suffering or extinguishment. For example, in some suttas the Buddha describes nibbana as the supreme happiness, perfect bliss, peace, serenity, liberation, freedom, and/or freedom of heart. The turtle fish story in the paper is also illustrative.

That said, I’m not an arahant, and it seems only an arahant could really accurately describe what nibbana is or isn’t, and even then we would be bound by the limits of words and circumstances like the turtle and fish faced. The turtle in the story had been to dry land and tried futilely to explain to the fish what dry land is like.

For me, what’s important is that assiduously studying all of the early suttas and trying to practice what Buddha taught has completely changed my life for the better over the years. So, I’m developing trust that nibbana is more than a worthy goal. Hope this helps.

with metta,

8 Likes
89

I think the Buddha wanted to find a way out of his pain and a way to be happy. He thought he found it. He spent the rest of his life teaching other people how to find it. That’s why he stayed alive - not because his “kammic residue” had to be exhausted.

He was followed by an increasingly patriarchal, self-interested, and dogma-armed religious establishment that did what religious establishments tend to do: prey on people’s fears and superstitions. It scared them with nightmares of hells and endless eternal rounds of torment, enticed then with hopes of devata lives in fantastically long-lasting pleasure palaces, the proper means of navigation among which was … surprise! … giving stuff to their sedentary and indolent religious leaders.

4 Likes
90

That’s certainly what seems to have happened in religions such as Christianity with which I am familiar from my own culture - just think of the ‘indulgences’ of the Catholic Church.
I think you raise an interesting question which certainly deserves consideration, and I think it’s a good sign of open mindedness that such comments/debates can be made on this website :slight_smile:

1 Like
91

I didn’t really read Iti44 as a “and that’s why the Buddha stayed alive”. I read it more as “there are two nibbāna-elements”, one seems to correspond to someone seemingly living, one to someone seemingly dead.

Then again, they say that the difference between a Buddha and a rock is that a Buddha has metabolism, so who am I to say!

2 Likes
92

Hi irene, and all,

The Pali Canan does not convey entirely the authentic teachings of the Buddha. Only some Pali collections are closer to the early Buddhism. This is based on the current findings by Yinshun regarding the compilation of the Pali nikayas/agamas and their Chinese counterparts:

  • SN/SA was the foundation of the four nikayas/agamas in the formation of early Buddhist texts.
    Yinshun suggestes that SN/SA (ie. the synthesis of the first three angas: Sutra/Sutta, Geya/Geyya, and Vyakarana/Veyyakarana) came into existence first, and that subsequent expansion of it yielded the other nikayas/agamas in the sequence MN/MA, DN/DA, AN/EA.

  • SN/SA had its origin in the first council.

  • MN/MA, DN/DA, and AN/EA orginated at the second council. (Sutta-nipata, Udana and Dhammapada compiled in the Khuddaka-nikaya rather than being made part of the four basic nikayas/agamas).

  • The extant SN/SA (and also other nikayas/agamas) are definitely sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively.

Yinshun’s research on the formation of early Buddhist texts is written in Chinese: 原始佛教聖典之集成 [The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts] (1971) (See Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 2-11).

Kind regards,
Thomas

6 Likes
93

Hi brooks,
one view that I come across is that whereas annihilationists think there’s a self which gets annihilated, in buddhism one says that there was never a self in the first place, so in parinibbana there is extinguishment but there was not a self to extinguish anyway.
Be as it may I remember, if I am not mistaken, reading an Introduction to the suttas by Maurice Walshe in which he wrote that indeed it would be very strange if nibbana was just no more existence, since in buddhism you make that the ideal and practice that a lot to attain it, whereas if you are a materialist and atheist you just take that as a given without having to do any practice for it :wink: :rofl: (and usualy you don’t consider that a good or desirable thing).

94

I would say it is because there is a difference between physical fuel and mental fuel. The Body has it’s own causes and conditions for it’s sustenance and if it is given physical fuel nourishment in the form of food it will continue it’s corporeal existence. The mind too continues it’s existence, it is only the delusion that ceases and therefore the ability to suffer because all of the 5 hindrances have been forever seen and abandoned and therefore there is no further arising of dukkha in the mind of an arahant. The body however, will continue until it becomes sick and dies as it is not solely created by the mind. The mind influences the body but it is not it’s sole creator. The body is created by the 4 constituent elements and therefore as long as those elements are given to the body, it will carry on until it is worn out, diseased and passes away through physical dissolution back into those 4 basic elements once again.

1 Like
95

Hi Irene. Good discussion! That seems to be a common view you quoted and a difficult one to discuss. I think that is because the Buddha does teach anatta (non-self) in the suttas, especially to monastics. A whole book could be written on this topic, and there probably are such books already.

It seems the teachings of anatta have to do a lot with the five aggregates - form, feelings, perceptions, volitional formations, and consciousness - not being permanent and thus they are not a permanent enduring self.

However, the Buddha does talk about the unconditioned and the deathless element, and perhaps impersonal awareness, which are not the same as the five aggregates. These words seem to be pointing to that which is both not nothing and not something, but beyond finite language and understanding. They also don’t seem to be a self, as we understand self. That’s why I mentioned the Buddha’s discussion of his teachings and path being subtle and profound. Sounds like it takes direct experience to fully understand nibbana.

The good news is, as the Buddha taught, his teachings are good in the beginning, middle and end. So, his gradual training approach can bring us immediate benefit that grows over time. The difficulty seems to be the Buddha is no longer here to teach us directly, and there are so many different interpretations about what he taught.

Also, it can be challenging to find suttas that are relevant to our situation. Fortunately, sutta central is going a long way to make the Buddha’s teachings more accessible. Seems like there is and will continue to be an awesome unfolding of the dharma in the years to come:-)

Metta,

7 Likes
96

Whether the Lotus Sutra can be read alongside the Pali suttas depends on whether one takes an inclusivist or exclusivist reading of the Lotus Sutra:

For some later commentators, the sutra is seen as illustrating the relationship between the One Vehicle and the various, sometimes contradictory teachings found in Buddhist tradition.

The different teachings each have their own validity as skillful means; they are indispensable in leading toward the Buddha’s insight, but they are not the whole of it in and of themselves. Since enlightenment is beyond words and concepts, any doctrinal statement is going to be relative and incomplete, and that is why the One Vehicle is never formulated in words.

According to this reading, the sutra is really not about anything. It is a direct presentation of how the Buddha’s teachings actually work, an enactment of Buddhism as a pedagogical system.

This kind of reading is inclusive, in that any doctrine or practice can be seen as a “skillful means” leading toward enlightenment. Other readings, however, tend to be exclusive, in that they identify the One Vehicle with a specific teaching, which is then held to supersede all others.
The Final Word: An Interview with Jacqueline Stone

Daisaku Ikeda has an exclusivist interpretation of the Lotus Sutra as the only valid teaching of the Buddha, superseding all other teachings and practices. East Asian Buddhism more generally, however, has seen the Lotus Sutra’s One Vehicle as embracing many teachings and practices, various forms of skillful means leading to enlightenment.

1 Like
97

Just now I tried to read the Lotus Sutra for the first time and…I couldn’t. It felt too much like reading an epic script for a Hollywood show.

Thus have I heard. Once the Buddha was staying in the city of Rājagṛha, on
the mountain called Gṛdhrakūṭa, together with a great assembly of twelve
thousand monks, all of whom were arhats whose corruption was at an end,
who were free from the confusion of desire, who had achieved their own
goals, shattered the bonds of existence, and attained complete mental discipline. Their names were Ājñātakauṇḍinya, Mahākāśyapa, Uruvilvakāśyapa,
Gayākāśyapa, Nadīkāśyapa, Śāriputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākātyāyana, Aniruddha, Kapphiṇa, Gavāṃpati, Revata, Pilindavatsa, Bakkula,
Mahākauṣṭhila, Nanda, Sundarananda, Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra, Subhūti,
Ānanda, and Rāhula. All of them were great arhats, known to the assembly.
There were in addition two thousand others, both those who had more to
learn and those who did not. The nun Mahāprajāpatī was there, together with
her six thousand attendants; and also the nun Yaśodharā, Rāhula’s mother,
together with her attendants.
There were also eighty thousand bodhisattva mahāsattvas, all of whom
were irreversible from highest, complete enlightenment (anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi). … (LotusSutra)

So I put it down and read MN121:

There is only this that is not emptiness, namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. …

And peace returned.

7 Likes
98

I second your sentiments. I’ve been really open to read an understand from that yana , and for instance still like very much the readings of Hakuin. But when I arrived at such literature, I only was interested to understand, what mind is that which composes such insane images of history .

I met such style of language, thinking and putting things together from some casual reading of the gnostic apocryphes around the abrahamic/mosaic transmissions but also there I could not grasp or realize any familiarity with that style of sayings.

It’s really a topic to learn to understand, to detect some handle for the grasping of the underlying mental process and for the dealing with it. (at least, we are all humans and have human minds, don’t we?)

4 Likes
99

To be exact & precise ,

nidana ,
sacca ,
ahara ,
khandas ,
salayatana ,
dhatu &
bodhapakkhiyā dhammā .

100

I might add indriya (faculties), anicca, dukkha, anatta, and ariya attangika magga.

101

That seems like an unfair double standard, considering how often the same kind of grandiose language is used in the Pali suttas.

What I’d recommend doing, as I’d do with any Buddhist scripture, is read it as uncritically as possible from beginning to end, so one can then assess its overall message before expressing an opinion on it.

If you had taken the time to read through the Lotus Sutra, you’d find the same teaching within its pages.

Please keep in mind that the Lotus Sutra might be the most influential Buddhist scripture in East Asian history. I believe it deserves some measure of respect, whether it’s one’s cup of tea or not.

102

With 4000 suttas in the Pali Canon, and a certain restlessness at the brevity of life, I have chosen to read the suttas I can actually grasp. I’ve been reading DN33 for months now, deeply grateful for Sariputta’s terseness. The Lotus Sutra will have to remain unknown to me until I dispel that restlessness. The sutta is simply inaccessible due to its verbosity, as is much of the abhidhamma, sadly. I lack the patience currently. I also lack the patience to watch TV shows or listen to songs to their conclusion.

:pray:

1 Like
103

I wonder if the common man in East Asia had access to the entire cannon if they would have gone for the Lotus sutra. :roll_eyes:

104

I’ve not actually read the Lotus Sutra, but skimming through the summary on Wikipedia, it’s clear that it is the origin of many influential concepts and similes that I have heard a lot! Though I take the point that there is not time to read the vast corpus of Buddhist literature, I also think that it is possible to take inspiration from such writings, even if one doesn’t take them as the literal word of the Buddha. This interview sheds some light on that sort of issue:

:heart:

1 Like
105

I find this a rather rude remark, and I won’t go into deeper dispute on this style of exchange, because I don’t see an intention to do a clarifying dispute at all.
A clarifying intention would be visible if there were, for instance, a question like “on what sort of examples do you arrive at such a sentient?” Maybe, a discussion of such example would lead to convergence towards a common judge, and that interest is what I expect with seriously engaged discutants.
Well, for the other folks around, I’ve done a long, or let’s better say, intense discussion about that topic of absurde gigantic speculations in the so-called “maha-parinirvana-sutra”. That discussion has been done in the german buddhist newsgroup in April 2007; the thread is in google-groups where I documented there my surprise and gave examples of (in my view: sick minded) gigantomanic tellings.
(For the interested reader to get more of the dispute and also of its unpleasant general style I’ve prepared a pdf-file with that what seemed most significant to me)
To give just one example, provided by some contributor “karl”,
(…)

(…)
Chapter One Introductory

Thus have I heard. At one time, the Buddha was staying at Kusinagara in the
land of the Mallas, close to the river Ajitavati, where the twin sal trees
stood. At that time, the great bhiksus [monks] as many as 80 billion hundred
thousand were with the Blessed One. They surrounded him front and back. On
the 15th of the second month, as the Buddha was about to enter Nirvana, he,
with his divine power, spoke in a great voice, which filled the whole world
and reached the highest of the heavens. It said to all beings in a way each
could understand: "Today, the Tathagata [i.e. Buddha] the Alms-deserving and
Perfectly Awakened One, pities, protects and, with an undivided mind, sees
beings as he does his [son] Rahula. So, he is the refuge and house of the
world. (…)

My own initial expression of surprise about that readings was first this (see first msg in the google-groups-thread by “Gottfried Helms”)

(…)
h) That the noble Mahaparinirvana Sutra itself is “unique”, “the ultimate of
all Mahayana discourses”, the “most excellent King of sutras [scriptures]”,
revealing “the very ultimate meaning of all sutras”,

FWIW, that cowboy-ish attack injecting terms like “unfair” and “double-standard” here into the discourse (without any intention to clear /resolve possible discrepancies first) reminds me much on the then discussion and I don’t think it’s worth to engage again in that style here in 2019.

1 Like