Hi all
I hope this finds you and those close to you well and happy.
I have started a new research project.
It is putting the instruction in the 4 Great References in action. In this case comparing what disciples (usually Thera) have claimed to be the Buddha’s teaching with records ascribed to the Buddha himself. I have decided to focus on the Majjhima Nikaya.
I welcome anyone to join me in this research. You can have a look via this link:
If you want to join, pls let me know and I’ll note your name down as to which discourse you want to examine.
Best wishes
Joe
or if you are quite computer savvy (so will not accidently delete or modify others’ work), and you would like to contribute to this collaboration, then please send an editor request and you can use the spreadsheet to save your research, so that others can read it as you add to it
one can just view the spreadsheet to see what research has been done already
The first sutta in the MA not attributed to the Buddha is MN 5. It is attributed to Bh. Sāriputta. Some points of doctrine have not yet been found in the words of the Buddha and some initially look like they go against the Words of the Buddha.
One of the latter is: wearing rag robes etc is presented as an alternative to wearing robes given by householders etc, but the Ordination procedure I underwent said the four requisites: alms food, rag robes, living under trees and a natural type of medicine were not to be given up. So they were not presented as optional. There are other allowable means of getting food, but as I read it the text would mean, the general practice would be walking on alms round, which shouldn’t be given up for life, but occasionally could be substituted with the allowables.
I think it was one of my teachers who told me this, I cannot recall exactly, or which part of the ceremony.
The first part of this research is seeing if ideas promoted by disciples have been ascribed to the Buddha. That is quite straightforward.
The second part is if they are not or are different, trying to find a reasonalbe explanation, which would involve personal analyses and opinion and my step on the toes of those who do not want to criticise actions or ideas that have become heterodoxy.
I will not enter discussion with people regarding the second part, unless they show some friendliness and impartiality, i.e. not assuming negative motivations the other party.
This quote you have given shows a sign of lateness, i.e. ‘Sangha’ seems to be used specifically for a group of monks. In the reflection on the Triple Gem, it seems obvious that it is the Noble Sangha, which can be found in the 4 assemblies: monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen.
I was informed to not do 4 things (the Pārājikā) and to never give up 4 things, the requisites.
Do you mean that your preceptor told you this or that it was stated in the kammavācā used at your ordination? If the latter, do you recall the name of the text containing this kammavācā?
Huh? This is from the ordination procedure where a group of four monks is required to perform the ordination. So obviously there is the concept of sangha as a group of monks. Even so, it’s hardly something “late”. Furthermore, if your project is to examine texts based on the four great references, then adding in the very ambiguous quality of “lateness” is going to make things completely subjective if it isn’t already.
Well, the one thing we can say with some certainty (unless you are reporting on something that happened to you in a past life) is that your ordination was very late in the scheme of things.
