Hi Thomas
SN is outside the 4 Nikaya/Agama, which are the shared texts. So, I don’t hold that text in high regard. This doesn’t mean there are no authentic teachings in it.
Cheers
Joe
PS: sorry I read SN as Sn, Sutta Nipata.
1 Like
Hi Dogen
Thanks for pointing that one out. I may add it to my collection.
Nevertheless, I do not find that instruction very clear or concise at all, but rather vague. Also, it seems to be focused on desires as the cause, which I believe does not free oneself, but only suppresses, and would be the Hindu interpretation/overlay of the Buddha’s teaching, original teaching of Ignorance as the cause. It’s certainly up to you to choose to follow whatever advice you wish, which may agree with your inclinations.
In my collection, you would have seen quite a few specific instructions to do comparisons and an example of this can be found in the Anapanasati Sutta, where the 16 steps are compares with the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness.
I am trying to find Dhamma via the Buddhavacana, as I believe the Buddha’s teaching can still be found in the records of his words and this would be the most efficient use of my time. So, the specific advice on how to study Buddhavacana, which I have compiled, is very relevant. If I were not interested in the Buddha’s words, then the advice in the previous quote, would probably be one of my main focusses.
And once I have clarified to the best of my ability what is Buddhavacana, then I do not take it as the truth, but test it in experience, to see if it achieves the stated goal.
best wishes
Joe
1 Like
I don’t think it establishes desire as a cause; it sounds like a paraphrasing.
I think the quote literally says “Whatever leads to freedom from yoking”; the point is seeking whatever leads to freedom, without talking about a cause. One could even argue that not knowing this difference (that is, the knowledge of what leads to yoking and what leads to unyoking) is the ignorance mentioned in the DO.
Out of curiosity, what is your basis for establishing this so? I believe some academics even argue how DO might be a later elaboration.
In that case, trying to first establish a Buddhavacana only to then test it out again seems like having a middleman. One can already test out the contents of the suttas without going through the hassle of arguments to establish whether it’s early or later - one needs to only rely on their gnosis, as your Kalama sutta as you’ve pointed out. But of course, you do you. 
I mean don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the intellectual debate of trying to vet out what Buddha might’ve said, especially with @josephzizys and similar endeavours; but to me those are purely intellectual curiosities, almost a hinderance on the path, because once you admit that some/bulk (depending on your level of scepticism) parts of canon are corrupted, then it’s an irony in exercise to rely on the arguments contained within to come to a self-consistent logic.
If it works for you, that’s great.
3 Likes
And if everyone was enlightened there world be no need for the debate. It’s a catch 22.
5 Likes
re possibly ‘desire as a cause’ in your quoted methodology: yes, it all seems quite vague, such as you suggest there could be paraphrasing…
There are many versions of DO. Dr Rod Bucknell has written on some of them and no doubt others, and he talked about the theory DO was developed or maybe modified over time. I don’t accept the standard version of DO because:
- I find it hard to relate to everyday life
- it does not fit with the (many other versions of the) Path
these two are both unlike the version of DO in SN 12.23.
When I compare the ideas of desire or ignorance as a cause, I find ignorance makes things more relatable and matches the claim that the Buddha discovered something new. Desire is still taught as the cause in Hinduism, I believe.
Yes. I choose to take the Buddha as my teacher and the expert, interpreter, middleman on his teaching. So, I look to him first, seeking his guidance and investigating in the way I believe he taught us to do. To me, this exercise of intelligence, is an integral part of entering the path, not just an intellectual curiosity. At the start one is a Faith Follower, then one becomes a Dhamma Follower. Some may remain a Faith Follower all their lives, I would imagine.
cheers
1 Like
Are you sure SN is outside the 4 Nikayas? In my experience SN contains the teachings closest to the Buddha. Studying SN alongside the Chinese parallels has helped me a great deal.
With Love
5 Likes
Are you seriously coming to this board, claiming to know what is “early” in the EBT and you don’t even know that the Samyutta Nikaya is one of the 4 Nikayas?
Honestly @Brother_Joe it beggars belief.
1 Like
Oh, I read it as Sutta Nipata.
2 Likes
Oh of course! I really couldn’t believe it, but that makes sense, sorry from my bombast 
2 Likes
No, sorry. I read it as Sutta Nipata. Not Sanyutta Nikaya.
1 Like
hahah. Then the Buddha wouldn’t have said anything, I would guess, being enlightened.
1 Like
Yes, I hold SN generally in high esteem.
1 Like
Hi again Thomas
Having applied the various pieces of advice I have found attributed to the Buddha in the EBTs, I believe I have made progress on identifying the gradual path. This includes discovering that the four Jhana were likely just one of the more than 50 various consistent presentations of the Path by the Buddha in the EBTs. This agrees with the realization the Buddha had just after his conclusion of testing the two extremes, when he remembered an experience as a young man ‘jhana is the middle way, which avoids the two extremes and I should develop that’.
You can read more in the topic Seeking Recommendations on resources on the gradual training for laypeople
All these presentations of the Path conform to the Three Trainings: Ethics, Composure and Wisdom.
best wishes
Joe
1 Like
Hi all
Thanks to the ‘encouragement’ which I translated from the complaint, I have added references to my spreadsheet and changed the access of the Google Document to ‘anyone with the link can view’.
Here is the newer version:
Ealier and Later Teachings.pdf (2.3 MB)
Best wishes
Joe
2 Likes
Those wholesome emotional responses mentioṇed in SuttaCentral are often linked with the Insight Knowledges and I see a danger in unlinking them.
1 Like
Hi again all
Here is my new list of the 50+ possible presentations of the Path in the Pali texts, from 3 to nearly 20 items in various presentations. It’s based on a list by Dr Rod Bucknell around 1996 and is under development. It also has my notes on how suspected corruptions came in, but those details are more in the spread sheet with my theory of Earlier and Later Teachings, mentioned before.
Best wishes
Joe
1 Like
I support you in your Journey. I hope you consider Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi… what a difficult task, but it is the True Jewel of Buddhism!
Best Wishes.
1 Like
Hi all
I’ve summarised my main points into a simpler shorter table.
here it is:
best wishes
Joe
2 Likes
Dear Brother Joe, hello again.
Can I suggest you that you include the infore in this Sheet, even if it’s linked at the bottom, at the top? At least you could link it at top; but I’d suggest to include the basic theory of it anyway, because I think, more than your conclusions your methodology and preface is more important and interesting to me.
Now, as for your conclusions: I’ve previously read your remarks quoted from the suttas and how to apply them. The 50+ variations doc so is the most interesting piece here for me.
I would, however, disagree with Lectio difficilior potior assumption as-is. If that were the case, then that would say that more arcane Mahayana texts would undoubtedly be the correct ones! 
(A claim I neither hold or object against, it should be noted)
There are very wise voices that also say, Buddha’s teaching might’ve been blindingly simple and obvious, and over time got more cryptic and convoluted by the establishment to differentiate it neatly from Brahmanism, while simultaneously incorporating Brahmanical influences almost paradoxically. It can be doctrinally a simple declaration, yet profound and hard to relate. What do you think of that?
Lastly, wondering from genuine position - once we destablize the authority of the third council (which I don’t really object to) - then how can we say anything about “historical” or “genuine” Buddha to begin with?
I find the faith-based arguments for the provenance of Pāli Canon, while unconvincing, still self-consistent to some degree (even though ironically, this very faith goes against the spirit of the canon itself, with the emphasis on being sceptical about scriptures, about teachers, so on and so forth).
Therefore, if we’re going back all the way to 3rd council - why not go even further? Why not consider entire literature as a mythological recount, perhaps even loosely based on a real sage, but perhaps not?
The very same scriptures held as historical account (even if potentially corrupt) tell us not to rely on scriptural authority. And there are no other historical records related to any figure that might be Buddha. This seems like a peculiar dilemma to me that I haven’t been able to resolve.
All the best.
4 Likes
Hi Dogen
Thanks for your message.
I’m sorry that I don’t understand your suggestion here:
Can I suggest you that you include the infore in this Sheet, even if it’s linked at the bottom, at the top? At least you could link it at top;
Could you reword this to specify what info you suggest should go at the top?
Re your:
but I’d suggest to include the basic theory of it anyway, because I think, more than your conclusions your methodology and preface is more important and interesting to me.
It seems to me I supply the basic theory/methodology at the top of the spreadsheet. So, I don’t get your point here either.
re your:
I would, however, disagree with Lectio difficilior potior assumption as-is. If that were the case, then that would say that more arcane Mahayana texts would undoubtedly be the correct ones!
Not at all. the principle would be applied different readings of the same material in the same types of texts. The EBTs and Mahayana texts are not the same types of texts. The principle seems to be mostly applied to a variation in reading a word or a phrase, where the material either side is practically identical. This is quite specific.
Re your:
There are very wise voices that also say, Buddha’s teaching might’ve been blindingly simple and obvious, and over time got more cryptic and convoluted by the establishment to differentiate it neatly from Brahmanism, while simultaneously incorporating Brahmanical influences almost paradoxically. It can be doctrinally a simple declaration, yet profound and hard to relate. What do you think of that?
I haven’t heard that theory. In any case I would agree that it is overcomplicated and that Brahminist ideas have been incorporated. I think the majority of scholars would not claim his teaching was blindingly simple at any time, due to the clear claims it was very subtle.
re your:
Lastly, wondering from genuine position - once we destablize the authority of the third council (which I don’t really object to) - then how can we say anything about “historical” or “genuine” Buddha to begin with?
The records show the Buddha did not agree in centralised control, as in the control of a small group, but he agreed in centralised control, as in coming from within oneself. Thus he taught taking oneself as the only refuge.
re your:
Therefore, if we’re going back all the way to 3rd council - why not go even further? Why not consider entire literature as a mythological recount, perhaps even loosely based on a real sage, but perhaps not?
We have been fortunate to have the EBTs preserved by various efforts, but I believe we still have to rely on our wits to work out how to practice. It is up to each person, what resources they will use to do so. Early Buddhism takes us back to the Third Council and I am attempting to go further back to the time of the Buddha. I have faith that the Buddha’s teaching can be still found in the EBTs, but it requires some effort and any theory then must be tested in experience. I followed the standard Theravada for many years and have not found it very beneficial at all. Thus I had to go my own way.
Yes, it was a dilemma for me for a long time also. There are two principles I follow:
- I take the Buddha as my teacher.
- I take myself (my actions/kamma) as the only refuge, vis Kalama Sutta.
1 . meant my way was to collect the instructions the Buddha reportedly gave on how to study his teaching and apply them. This seemed the most logical process to me and then I noticed the Buddhist Councils hadn’t done that.
- meant I had to use my intelligence in applying the instructions, to come up with a likely theory, then test it in experience and see if it worked. If it didn’t work, I would have given up on the EBTs altogether.
best wishes
Joe
1 Like