I’m not sure what you mean, but the Adittapariyaya Sutta, the Fire Sermon, one of the first teachings, deals with this directly.
1 Like
SN35 is late. And “deals with this directly” is an overstatement. In fact the sutta relies on an object process distinction for the metaphor to work- the eye (object) is burning (process) etc.
We are asked to become disillusioned with the object because of the process, however since a) cakkhuviññāṇaṃ is a late technical term amd b) the point of the sutta is not to define a self process or otherwise, it hardly counts as resolving anything in this context.
Metta
Hi, are you saying the ‘Fire Sermon’ is not a teaching given by the Buddha?
If so, would you say that what it teaches is incompatible with what you consider the true Dhamma?
Are the concepts presented there, anatta, sense bases, incompatible with the Dhamma?
Maybe for comparison it would be helpful for you to provide what you consider to be something not ‘late’, a true teaching of the Buddha.
2 Likes
I mean honestly i am coming round to the idea that none of the suttas are actual reports of what the buddha said, and that it is muchore likely that the community was chanting short doctrinal formulas during the buddhas lifetime and that these where collected and elaborated posthumously into the “suttas” we have now.
What this particular sutta teaches is perfectly orthodox.
I think both anatta and sense bases can be construed in ways that are congruent and compatible with what i take to be the earlier layer, but i think they both can and have been used to misinterpret the dhamma by some.
As for something “not late” my prime candidate is the sekha patipada, appearing for example at DN2, however I doubt even this is something the Buddha “actually said” and is far more likely to be something that the community around the buddha chanted, perhaps even during his lifetime.
Joseph, many of your posts seem to advocate for a type of pure unadulterated dhamma, untainted by later vocabulary and additions.
I suppose this fundamental stratum of dhamma would be the one to study. But how incompatible and misleading is this ‘late’ dhamma? How much are we in danger by reading the nikayas?
Do you plan to put out a purified version at some point?
2 Likes
Well, i think the main danger, at least for the Theravada, turned out to be the reification of anatta into a metaphysical position that went beyond the (imo early and “unadulterated”) undeclared points.
Some of the perhaps lesser dangers include seeing otherwise very sensible and intelligent monastics worrying about wether or not they can feel more than one thing at a time 
I am in fact working up something to put on here that makes my “whole” argument.
Basically I think that “thing, its arising, its ceasing, the way to its ceasing”, the “danger grayification and escape” the “four jhanas (and most of the rest of the sekkha)” the “seen, the thought and the known” “craving” and a few other of the formulas appear more widely and consistantly than the nidanas, sense bases and aggregates.
Similarly jhana meditation seems much more widely and consistently distributed than either mindfullness or breath meditation.
So i take it that a buddhism of arising ceasing danger gratification and escape from craving by jhana practice probably represents this earlier layer which is elaborated into mindfullness of the aggregates/sense bases/nidanas leading to insight into anatta, which is a slightly later, but still (if handled with care) completely compatible exposition.
And as we have it now, probably not one word of it was actually said by the buddha in the way that the suttas describe.
Which is not the same thing as saying he didnt teach these ideas. Just not in the words we have now.
Metta.
Also, I’m confused as you seemed to reply to my offering of the Fire Sermon as ‘that’s late’.
In the sense of it not being a valid example but rather kind of not true dhamma.
But it seems in the next post you said it was ‘orthodox’?
How do these work together?
Do we have the true early layer and then some later additions that can be considered to be compatible with the dhamma?
How many people will get to decide this?
2 Likes
Well, we each get to decide these things for ourselves dont we? At least for those of us living in countries with freedom of religion.
So you get to say “this is one of the first suttas”
And i get to say “i dont think so”
Well for me it works because i do t really think any of the nikayas preserve actual reportage of the Buddhas teaching career, so its all late, and not “true dhamma” in that sense.
I think Theravadins have a deep religious anxiety about textual authenticity because for thousands of years they have defined themselves in contradistinction with Mahayana by rejecting thier texts as “not true dhamma” hence thier own texts have to be “true dhamma”.
In terms of orthodoxy and compatibility with the earlier layer, well, again, i get to decide what i think amd you get to decide what you think, but i think that the vast majority of both Theravada and Mahayana texts that i have read can be read in a way that shows a deep harmony and consistency about what dhamma is and what its for.
That for me has almost nothing to do with the textual analysis of the 4 principle nikayas and thier agama counterparts, as i dont have any faith commitments to maintaining them all as the “pure true dhamma” in opposition to the “false” mahayana texts, i just want to work out which bits most likely came first and which bits came next, even if all the bits (and a lot of the vinaya and abhidhamma and mahayana bits as well) are “true” dhamma.
I’m sure you are aware of Vens Sujato and Brahmali’s book on the subject, where they make the case over more than a hundred pages for the Early Buddhist Text’s authenticity.
Of course, their knowledge of Pali and the Pali texts is well known.
That is to say, certainly everyone is entitled to decide what to read and believe. But to take these 2 on, with what seems a direct refutation, will take some doing.
Maybe you’re right. I’m not really qualified to say. And I look forward to reading your research when you present it.
2 Likes
I have read, and love, that work, and have read, and love, A History of Mindfullness, and The difference between Early Buddhism and Theravada, a Checklist. I love them all.
However, while Authenticity very rightly offers a counter to the extreem scepticism of the likes of Gregory Shopen, I think it rather swimgs a little too far in the other extreem, replacing total scepticism with perhaps a little too much credulity.
I definitely have specific points to make, especially in relation to the GIST, in Mindfulness, but I am currenlty in the middle of a lot of other groundwork so it will all have to wait a while for now.