Thank you for the reply Bhante
Yes, this is the typical Buddhist outlook. At the same time, I suspect lots of Buddhists throughout history have felt uneasy about this, especially the educated ones. I mean, it just doesn’t stack up. But then the forces of culture have stifled these alternative voices. What this means is that I don’t think it is impossible to change the narrative. Once the case has been properly made, I expect the floodgates to open. The message just needs to be repeated until people get used to the different perspective. Standing outside of traditional Buddhist societies, we have the luxury of not being subject to the same cultural forces. This means we have a responsibility of saying unpopular but necessary truths.
As you probably know the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika taught that the Abhidharma was produced by later monks (and likely nuns). They also taught that all the later Theras did was extract it from their sutras. Since their Abhidharma accords with the meaning, it is Buddhavacana. It might have been in response to this view that the Theravādins claimed their Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha himself.
I prefer the former understanding. The latter view seems to be rooted in suttas such as AN8.8, which has been shown by Bhante @Sujato, here , to be late. As I have shown above, the Buddha seems not to have agreed with this.
In theory, I agree that anything that agrees with the word of the Buddha could be considered Buddhavacana. The problem is that it is often hard to judge whether there is real agreement or not. The discussions found in the Kathāvatthu are enough to remind us how hard it can be to discern the authentic from the inauthentic. The easiest solution is often to leave aside anything that is even remotely problematic. There is plenty enough to reflect on in the early suttas.
I had more in mind AN 8.53
“Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”
“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. You should definitely bear in mind that these things are 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. You should definitely bear in mind that these things are the teaching, the training, and the Teacher’s instructions.”
Combined with the 4 Great References (or even if i take them alone), which Sujato has shown is referring to fitting within the 4NT and training, we can say that if a teaching leads to the diminishing of greed, hatred and delusion then it is Buddhavacana. I find this quite liberating, as it puts an end to all the squabbling about Bodhisattvas (I quite like Tsongkhapa’s argument that the Bodhisattva and the Arahant both have the same awakening, and so end up meeting each other), absorbed Jhāna vs non-absorbed, momentariness and so on.
It is perfectly possible to reduce defilements through the wrong means. For instance, indulging in sensual pleasures will lead to a temporary reduction in craving. But I am sure we can agree that this is not the path recommended by the Buddha. Similarly, powerful faith in a creator god may reduce the defilements, but will block you further down the path. And so a reduction in defilements is not a sufficient criterion to decide what is Buddhavacana. (It is interesting to note how we are already disagreeing. Sticking to the word of the Buddha will minimize such problems.)
I did say within the framework of the NEFP Bhante. That would exclude indulging in sensual pleasures. As for practicing with a view of a creator God, the Buddha did teach the brahmavihārās and discussed Great Brahma with people. It wouldn’t lead to a total cessation of greed etc no, but it would lead to Jhāna and a good rebirth. That is also an aspect of Buddhadhamma, and so Buddhavacana.
Only when the Buddha gives his stamp of approval. Then, of course, it is as if it was spoken by the Buddha himself.
That would then rule out a literalist reading of Buddhavacana, as it means Buddhavacana is also that which is in accordance with the Dhamma. I have already mentioned the case of the 4 elements vs rūpa-kalāpas. Now I don’t think the Buddha taught rūpa-kalāpas. I think he taught people to meditate via the 4 elements scheme. The 4 elements here being the material stuff out of which we and the physical world are made (rather than being forces or whatnot like “cohesion” which i hear often from both EBT folk and Ābhidhammikas). Now the aim of both is to undo attachment to the body, by seeing its emptiness. Does it really matter then if someone does this via the 4 elements or by way of rūpa-kalāpas, as long as the end result is the same (I would even argue that one could do it via the modern theory of atoms too)? I have heard Sujato say before, and many EBT people too, that rūpa-kalāpas don’t really exist, but neither do the 4 elements! There is, in our modern understanding, no such thing as an “earth element”. Its an outdated ancient theory of matter. From my point of view though it doesn’t matter. The Buddha wasn’t teaching a correct proto-science, or science or ontology or whatever. He was teaching concepts which we use as a means to let go. You mentioned the Kathāvatthu earlier. The problem there, the problem with the early schools, was in grasping the doctrine instead of using it as a raft.
