Earlier and Later Teachings

Discussion
45

Hi Brother Joe,

It is conceit that we can use any amount of textual analysis to definitively know what the Teacher taught. It is piling unverified conjecture atop unverified conjecture. The only way to know and verify the dhamma is to put it to the empirical test and that is a personal test. We risk great error every time we employ the conceit that we know when we do not in fact know.

Faith that masquerades as knowing is an obstacle on the path. It can act as a barrier to any progress. It reinforces the ego and conceit of feigning knowledge where there isn’t any. :pray:

1 Like
46

Hi Yeshe
I don’t know what spurred on this comment, but I agree with you. I’m not sure if you are trying to say or indicate you think I have fallen into conceit. I try very hard to avoid making statements, as if I know. If you see any, then please kindly let me now. In any case, I study the texts to get a likely theory of what the Buddha taught, then I test it in experience. If I find it works, I still don’t claim, I know the Buddha taught those things at all, or as I have understood, but I do have faith that he may have done so.
Best wishes, Joe

1 Like
47

additionally:

  1. the Mahayana seem to acknowledge their texts are different, by calling the EBTs ‘Hinayana’ or ‘Sāvakayāna’ texts.
  2. writing all texts of as unreliable, or unhelpful, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
1 Like
48

Thanks for sharing your idea on what conceit is, even if you shared it in such a way. Dear Sister, it is recorded that the Buddha has taught us to train in ‘safeguarding the truth’. That is, ‘not to say this is or is not so’, but rather to say ‘we believe this is or is not so’. MN95

2 Likes
49

I think when it comes to Buddhist texts and Buddhist practice it can sometimes be unhealthy to take an all or nothing or absolutist standpoint. Because even though something may be true, it may be unhelpful. And even though something may be not fully true or over exaggerated, it may spark in someone a momentum to figure out the actual truth that is helpful or a message deeper than what we think is the original one, all the way to the point of full Enlightenment. This is just one example, and I mean no offense to anyone’s system of belief. Namaste. I think though always, it’s important to be a seeker of truth and kindness.

1 Like
50

sādhu, sādhu, sādhu
Well done/said.

1 Like
51

Hello again. Reflecting back on when, as a teenager, I was thinking of becoming a Christian missionary, I see now, that the drive in me to proselytise (promote my beliefs as the truth), was due to my subtle doubt of the teachings in question. In other words, by getting others to believe, I allayed the doubts in myself. In effect there was this thought in the back of my mind “if I get them to believe, it must be true”. Of course, I don’t know the situation of other people, but I eventually saw this ulterior motive. Best wishes

52

Hi all

I hope this finds you and those close to you in good health and peace of mind.

I have now compiled just under 20 suttas and about 80 pages, which I believe are essential to develop Right View of the Teaching including the Gradual Training. The majority of suttas are from MA (12), then AN (5), SN (1) and DN (1).

In them I correct what Bhikkhu Sujāto, I think rightly, identifies as a feature of later doctrine, over determination of self, which he limits to Theravada, but I also believe is still part of Early Buddhism. I also correct other ideas I have found to be later, such as an over emphasis of the mendicant lifestyle.

It seems Bhikkhu Sujāto still believes the Buddha taught ‘no self’. This both in the meaning of ‘there is no self’ (na’tthi ahaṁ or n’atthi attā) and ‘all dhammas are not self’ (which is actually sabbe dhammā anattā, not anahaṁ) and does not distinguish between ahaṁ and attā in many of his translations, as with many others, a very key one being MN2, which is in my collection part 2.

I think this is very dangerous considering the Buddha is recorded to have said, his teaching is very subtle and other teachers such as Alara Kalama had: faith, energy, mindfulness, composure, and wisdom (MN 36), but their wisdom did not fully comprehend the teaching about attā/anattā (ref?).

Best wishes
Joe

3 Likes
Seeking Recommendations on resources on the gradual training for laypeople
53

Further to this topic, I have recently made a summary document. You can read the google document here:

or download a pdf from Academia.edu.

Ooops I just noticed that I posted this spreadsheet on the 8th March. In any case, I have updated it since then.

best wishes

Joe

54

Hi Anon

Thanks for your reply and sorry to take so long to respond.

This came from comparing various relevant Sutta and Vinaya texts, as the Buddha is recorded to have said ‘the sutta (dhamma) and vinaya will be your teacher when I’m gone’.

For Vinaya you might know the Four Parājika, the first four rules for the monks. The serious Parājika are more specific than the first four of the modern 5 Precepts and the Vinaya says the serious rules (unclear if it means just Parajika or also the 13 Sanghadisesa, but the second group does not apply to laypeople anyway) cover Ethics (Sīla), and the other minor rules cover good habits (ācāra). Avoidng killing beings other than human is in the other classes of faults, grouped under minor rules.

The Vinaya tries to determine what the serious version of stealing would be and the general attitude seems to be stealing something of great value, e.g. not just a plastic biro. If it meant stealing the means for someone to support themselves, then that would be akin to killing and make sense to me as a serious action. Also sealing other minor things is covered by other minor rules in the Vinaya.

The Parajika are also specific when it comes to sexual action, as you would know. In this regard it is a monk having sex with a woman. Other types of action are in the lessor category of rules.

Also it is specifically fraud in the Parajika, and even more specific, spiritual fraud. I read this in the context of monastic life, and it would be done for physical gains. I think the general idea of fraud also applies to lay people and they would do it also for physical gain, often resulting in the loss of livelihood for another, i.e. doing one out of a great wealth. Lessor types of stealing are covered in other less serious monastic rules.

Whether serious or minor, all are wrong action, but as I understand it, it is only breaking serious rules, which means breaking ethics, which will hinder one on the path. This distinction seems to be lost in Early Buddhism and Theravada. This matches with sutta verses that say a noble one will be cleared of minor infringements, since they have fulfilled the essentials of the holy life (in this case ethics/sīla, in my opinion).

For Sutta texts:

We have the Sigolavada Sutta, which talks about four Vices of Conduct (kamma kilesa) and the next action is obviously of a different category: intoxication which leads to wasting wealth. Thus in the Vinaya, we also find drinking alcohol as in the minor category of rules, not the Parajika (or sanghadisesa).

Rape and pedophilia would be classed under the explanation of wrong sexual conduct in the sutta which was addressed to a layperson: MN 114.

So, if one reads the consistent Suttas and Vinaya texts, it seems that the modern 5 Precepts for the laypeople are a more difficult or higher standard than the Vinaya for the monks. That’s the main reason I don’t accept the modern interpretation of the 5 Precepts. Rather I see they originally had two categories, like the Vinaya and only the first serious category was about Ethics.

I think the original 5th Precept was as found in the Kalama Sutta, which directly brought a social dimension into the training, the lack of which was an early criticism of the Mahayana. The Kalama Sutta seems to say the 5th Precept was: avoiding leading others into those four serious just mentioned actions.

My main study covering these points with relevant references is:

best wishes

Joe