Hi all
I hope this finds you well and happy.
In recent times comparative studies of different recensions of the Early Buddhist Texts have been done, especially the four Chinese Āgamas and the Pāli Nikāyas. I’m sure that is helping to establish differences between various schools and find earlier ideas. What one might call ‘early (pre-sectarian?) Buddhism’.
It’s recorded that the Buddha gave much advice on how to study his teaching to keep it pure. I have collected all the advice I know of here: The_Method_of_Studying_Buddha_Dhamma.pdf (437.1 KB)
I have been trying to apply this advice over the last 20 years. It has helped me greatly to make his teaching relevant to this very life, more relatable and practical and to clarify the gradual path.
It has led me to identifying what are probably later teachings and I have made a summary document listing these.
So, I offer this for your reflection. Ealier and Later Teachings.pdf (879.4 KB)
This is a link to the most up to date version:
This is an interesting list, thanks for posting it.
How did you come up with this one:
Ethics (sīla) is avoiding four serious actions: killing a human being, stealing someone’s livelihood, rape or pedophilia and fraud.
There are many mentions of not killing/harming living beings, I have never seen it limited to humans.
I have never seen “taking what is not given” to specifically refer to one’s livelihood, which would seem to imply stealing something not related to livelihood is acceptable.
Rape is also not specifically mentioned as sexual misconduct in the Canon (Bhante Pandita gives one explanation as to why in the paper below), so not sure where that comes from.
Refraining from lying (as part of Right Speech) seems to be more emphasized than fraud, so wondering about the central position of fraud here.
Hi
I hope this finds you well and happy.
Would you mind introducing yourself, when you message someone for the first time?
It seems quite cold to me to refer to you as ‘empty stream’.
All of my research is based on comparative studies of the Buddha’s words from the Discipline and Discourses, in accordance with the instructions recorded to be given by him, which I list in the first linked document.
Here is a link my study regarding the meaning of sīla, including the difference between ethics (a developed mental quality) and training rules (often received from a spiritual friend) for the purpose of developing ethics. Morality_Sila_and_Sikkhapada_From_Compar.pdf (244.1 KB)
Cheers
Joe
If you want people who reply to you to share their personal information, even if it is their real name, then please do so over PMs (private messages). People have user names other than their real names for a reason and it is not okay to ask anyone to disclose such information on a public forum in a public post.
I seems to me that it is common courtesy to introduce oneself when first starting a conversation. Maybe I am just too old fashioned and if this is not an acceptable standard of this forum, then I may have to reconsider membership.
Please let me know if this is an infringement of the standards here.
Actually, it was more not seeing any greeting at all, rather than not having a proper name. I think everyone would like to be acknowledged as a person in such a way. The Buddha set the example for us, when starting a personal conversation, he either enquired as to the person’s well-being or wished them well at the start of a conversation.
What if they were a monastic with name Suññasota, would you still object to it?
I appreciate unorthodox and open minded criticism & dissection of Buddhism, and I’ve checked some of the PDFs, and there’s some interesting stuff; however, early vs later categorisation seems arbitrary in absence of any supporting evidence and/or arguments in the file.
I also hesitate to interact with you because you seem more concerned with people’s attitudes and less so with the content of their posts, from what I’ve seen. Makes it hard to carry a fruitful discussion.
What I always try to point out is that somewhere along the path, you will have to make a personal decision about certain specific elements of the teaching anyway, because as you point out, there seem to be various layers of Suttas that cannot necessarily be united or may even contradict each other.
In this way I feel that date of authorship and/or originality may not be the most important criterion, but rather how coherent a certain point of view is and how well it holds up with the advanced empirical knowledge of our time.
Only if you believe that the Buddha was divine would it make sense to go for date of authorship IMO, and since there is no way to prove that even the earliest strata of Suttas could not by themselves already be corrupted, you would have to look into history before anything.
My name is Thomas, a funny talking German speaking man, and I am pleased to meet you.
Hi Thomas
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
As I mentioned I try to follow the advice the Buddha is recorded to have given in the EBTs on how to study his teaching. That advice has a clear message about keeping the teaching pure. So, he acknowledged the impermanence of the Teaching.
In applying the methods he supposedly taught, a clear picture of coherency appears. The points I have addressed are the ones where there are big conflicts in coherency.
For me the study methods he likely gave are the most likely way to ‘prove’ certain teachings are not corrupted, then one would have to test one’s theory in practice and if it achieves the result claimed, then that to me is confirmation the teaching is authentic.
Best wishes
Joe
By way of introduction and background, since you have requested this, I like to offer this link (about a year ago, I have progressed since then but at this point have not documented that progress):
Anyway, I have some questions about your interesting approach. Are you “Dhammadāsa Bhikkhu” as stated in your first link?
Secondly, I can’t seem to access to link to Google Sheets that you provided? Are you happy to grant access if I submit a request via Google?
Thirdly. in terms of distinguishing between early and late teachings, have you considered a “layered” approach from “core” to “augmented/enhanced” as opposed to “early” and “late”?
It strikes me (and I have been reminded of this by others on this forum) that the Buddha’s teachings may well have started very simple, ie. 4 truths, 8fold path, DO, etc. and then gradually elaborated over time by the Buddha and others to accommodate a wider range of disciples with different backgrounds, ability etc. Thus we progress from the core teachings to Abhidhamma, Mahayana etc.
To in my mind what might be useful is to document the progress and evolution of his teachings, what was added/changed etc. It’s not strictly a chronological progress, but more a progress of the complexity and depth of what was taught. I am going to avoid identifying which might have been “authentic” (taught by the Buddha himself) vs added later but obviously that is one lens that can be applied to such an analysis.
Anyway, I would be interested in hearing your opinion about this.
Hi Christie
No problem, you’re welcome, my pleasure.
I’ll have a look at your link, but rather than what you have learnt, I’d initially be more interested in how you studied. Did you apply the recorded instructions from the Buddha about studying his teaching?
Dhammadāsa Bhikkhu is my ordination name and I haven’t given up the core monk’s training, but I live much of a secular live now and don’t introduce my self with the ordination name.
Yes, if you send a request I will give access to the Google document.
I just composed this list, so I hadn’t thought about various layers, though I would probably call all or most of these core. I’ll look at that, thanks.
Yes, I have heard that theory, but I distinguish between ‘the Buddha’s teaching’ and ‘the Buddhist tradition’ and believe that the tradition has undoubtedly elaborated and accommodated various ideas over time. I believe the Buddha did not develop his teaching over time, as it was based directly on his personal experience.
Best wishes
Joe
I had a quick look at your link and these are the impressions I formed:
you seem to miss ‘clinging’ from the definition of the First Noble Truth, which is a common mistake, as a common paraphrase of it is ‘life is suffering’ when you add the most important clinging component in, it becomes ‘life with clinging is suffering’. This leads us from the other interpretation of the Second Noble Truth as ‘desire is the cause’ to ‘ignorance is the cause’, which we agree on, but not on īgnorance of what. You say ‘life and everything’, but I say ignorance of clinging or, that there are wholesome and unwholesome desires and the Buddha has often said, his teaching is not to eradicate all action (as in Hindu philosophy), but rather only unwholesome action.
it seems you have not tried to follow the recorded instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching
it seems you have not accounted for or applied the redefinition of key terms he used, which I call ‘the Noble Language’
Thanks for taking the trouble to read my link. I have a very different approach to studying the Buddha’s teaching, which I will not elaborate on this forum because I want to take the time to actually document it properly (which I may do later, but it’s not a committed path at the moment for me).
In particular, I don’t interpret the Pali words used in the teachings the same way as most mainstream Buddhists. In order to avoid unnecessary debate with other Buddhists who seem keen to correct my “misunderstandings”, as you yourself have attempted to do, I do not consider myself a Buddhist, but I believe in the core of what he taught and I believe I have understood and experienced them (in a different way from most Buddhists).
You will notice, I deliberately avoid words like “clinging” and have used Gombrich’s analogy of the five masses of burning fuel for the khandhas. This is completely intentional. I think I understand your phrase “life with clinging is suffering” but I would probably describe it differently, but as I have mentioned I won’t elaborate further. I am happy to discuss further via private messages, but I have found open discussions on this forum are not helpful as there is very little common ground behind what I believe and what others believe.
Consider this: It is a bit like Tech adaptation stages. First stage users are those who already are geeks (or in this case, highly skilled ascetics & practitioners), who would need the least amount of information as possible. Second layer would be junior ascetics, who would need certain concepts expanded upon. Third layer would be layfolk, who’re so far removed from the dhamma but still want to progress along the path. These people would come in waves and stages, and so Buddha’s teaching would nee to be tailored to such demographics differently.
I think the clearest instructions are this: AN8.53
“Gotamī, you might know that certain things lead to passion, not dispassion; to yoking, not to unyoking; to accumulation, not dispersal; to more desires, not fewer; to lack of contentment, not contentment; to crowding, not seclusion; to laziness, not energy; to being burdensome, not being unburdensome. Categorically, you should remember these things as not the teaching, not the training, and not the Teacher’s instructions.
You might know that certain things lead to dispassion, not passion; to unyoking, not to yoking; to dispersal, not accumulation; to fewer desires, not more; to contentment, not lack of contentment; to seclusion, not crowding; to energy, not laziness; to being unburdensome, not being burdensome. Categorically, you should remember these things as the teaching, the training, and the Teacher’s instructions.”
I haven’t seen a reference to this in your “The Method of Studying”. This is my methodology and I believe it’s concise enough.
It’s a principle such that, it doesn’t restrict itself to what’s been recorded, and encapsulates all.
I believe trying to find authentic Buddha-vacana has many pitfalls. There are certainly logical fallacies we might be inclined to use to boost our arguments - “This teaching is complicated, deep, so it must be a core teaching before it was watered down” vs. “This teaching is simple and direct, which is how Buddha must’ve said before it was elaborated by the others”.
Basically, as I’ve discussed with @christie before, relying on a body of text that you admit is corrupted to provide authority on a given subject is a task in impossibility.
What I’ve quoted above and what @Malunkyaputta has said is a critical piece of the puzzle - as long as whatever attitude leads to dispassion and disillusionment, it’s well as good as the teacher’s word. And whatever leads to more passion and more entanglement, even if it comes from a authoritative body of canonical text, should be abandoned.
It’s an attempt at self-consistent sīla that doesn’t depend on an authority. Being able to verify buddhavacana verbatim might’ve been a possibillity in Buddha’s time, but I doubt it’s possible today. All things change, after all. I think what we need to study suttas is an open mind to find inspirations and firestarters to discuss topics, not trying to establish “pure buddhavacana”, early or later.
A short collection of quotes from suttas that I find most inspirational are found in my anthology here: Leaves of Freedom
They form the backbone of my inquiries. I don’t subscribe to these ideals because Buddha said so; just the opposite, I keep reading the suttas because it containts inspirational wisdom that resonates so with what I already hold to be true.
According to the sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix, 契經, 摩呾理迦 or 本母), essentially a commentary on a portion of the Saṃyukta-āgama, in the Vastusaṅgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, the core teachings of the Buddha are these seven topics:
‘Discourses Connected with the Aggregates’
‘Discourses Connected with the Sense Spheres’
‘Discourses Connected with Causal Condition’
‘Discourses Connected with the Nutriments’
‘Discourses Connected with the Truths’
‘Discourses Connected with the Elements’
‘Discourses Connected with the Path: the Stations of Mindfulness, etc., of the Enlightenment Factors’
These seven topics (without the sections spoken by Śrāvakas and the Tathāgata) are considered by Ven. YinShun to be the most fundamental and earliest portion of the ‘Connected Discourses’ (相應教, saṃyukta-kathā) of the Saṃyukta-āgama. They are found in the five major sections (varga) on aggregates, sense spheres, causal condition (including nutriments, truths and the elements) and path of the extant Saṃyukta-āgama/Saṃyutta-nikāya.
Hi
thanks for sharing that
I believe the Buddha tailored the Path to various demographics, that’s why we have over 50 consistent versions of the Path, different in letter, but not in spirit.
We disagree on methodology, so we are most likely not going to agree on outcome.
So your words: “not trying to establish “pure buddhavacana”, early or later”, show this topic is not for you. You are welcome to start a topic based on the methodology you prefer.
The Kalama sutta would seem to teach us not to accept something just because it accords with our views.
good luck with that
cheers
Joe
