s

14/10/2558 Dharma Wheel • View topic Buddha Didnt Say It !

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5170&p=54630#p54630 1/7

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana BuddhismSearch… SearchAdvanced search

Buddha Didnt Say It !Forum rulesPost a replySearch this topic… Search11 posts • of 1Report this post (./report.php?f=77&p=54513)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=77&p=54513)

Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54513)by Karma Yeshe » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:18 am

There seems to be alot of discussion on this that is enbedded in other threads, but I thoughtit would be interesting to explore this in its own thread...

Often times people will make a comment to the effect that if the Historucal Buddha did notspecificly state something that it is somehow not authentic Buddhism. However, I think abroader view is the more correct one.

To take some examples of how our understanding of a topic can increase over time and stillremain authentic and reliable think about the work of Darwin and Watson & Crick. Both maderemarkable discoveries that fudementaly altered the way that we preceve the world. Nowtake it a step furthur. What if no progress in our understanding about DNA or evolution couldbe made because the writings and oral instructions and insights that Darwin and Watson &Crick left behind did not include certain specific knowledge and thus nobody would take thenext logical step.

The basic insights and Dharma Teachings that the Buddha showed the world allowed othersto grow and gain remarkible insights as to the nature of suffereing , the defects of samsaraand how to inprove life until suffereing ends. Out of the compassion that these disiples gainedthey in turn shared their insights with the world so that others who would come after themwould be able to refine the Dharma Teachings even further until a wide and rich set oflineages was created that can benifit each senteant being in the world. Each is of great useand equaly authentic and undeceptive but should not be constrained by the search for anexact quote by the Historical Buddha.

For example, the Teachings that I have gotten are that the Historical Buddha sat silent afterhis Enlightenment because of his concern that nobody would be able to grasp what he hadlearned. Only after others came to him beging to be free of suffering did the Buddha, out ofhis great conpassion begin to give the first of his 84,000 Teachings. He only gave the HiniaynaTeachings because people would not have been handle the concept of taking on the sufferingsof all Beings. Other schools, such as Zen tend to be more focused on realizing Emptiness

To stop with the historical Buddha and not use the Teachings that came after seems toolimited an outlook from my point of view and not really a question of what is authentic.

Any Thoughts?

Thank you

http://dharmawheel.net/search.php

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5170

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=109&t=12768#p166491

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=reply&f=77&t=5170

http://dharmawheel.net/report.php?f=77&p=54513

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=77&p=54513

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=54513#p54513

http://dharmawheel.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=916



Dan

TopReport this post (./report.php?f=77&p=54515)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=77&p=54515)

Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54515)by Epistemes » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:14 am

I don't see why this post couldn't have been added to the thread which I already started.


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54517)by LastLegend » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:30 am

To go along with this, I think it is important to understand the basic teachings of 4 NobleTruths and Dependent Origination. And through experience of practice, one can develop deeper understanding of Buddhistteachings.


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54522)by PadmaVonSamba » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:00 am

There are those who not only limit "real buddhism" to the Pali texts, but assert that onlysome of the Pali writings attributed to the Buddha are authentic teachings. I think one canaccept that it is possible (either likely or unlikely) that the bulk of the Mahayana teachings,which bear very little resemblance to the Pali texts, were composed later. However,whether that even matters or not is another question. Thousands of years ago, some cleverprimate learned how to make fire. The fact that today I make fire by turning on a gas stovedoesn't make the fire today essentially different that what was ignited long ago.

The Buddha Sakyamuni did not invent or make up the truth of suffering, it's cause, itscessation, and so forth. He realized it, and he explained it. It would have been the same

Karma Yeshe wrote:The basic insights and Dharma Teachings that the Buddha showed the worldallowed others to grow and gain remarkible insights as to the nature ofsuffereing , the defects of samsara and how to inprove life until suffereingends. Out of the compassion that these disiples gained they in turn shared theirinsights with the world so that others who would come after them would beable to refine the Dharma Teachings even further until a wide and rich set oflineages was created that can benifit each senteant being in the world. Each isof great use and equaly authentic and undeceptive but should not beconstrained by the search for an exact quote by the Historical Buddha.

Dan















truth whether he had realized it or not.We are fortunate that he did figure it out and sharedit with us. But craving is craving and cessation is cessation, regardless of who explains it orthrough what method it is realized.

The assertion that the only valid teachings are his exact words (we think) suggests that thetruth of the dharma relies on the person teaching it. This assertion, as I mentioned in arelated post, essentially negates the premise that he was not a god, but an ordinary(although extraordinary) human, and that therefore all of us can apply his teachings to ourown lives.

I know Thai forest monks, Chinese Pure land monks, and Tibetan lamas, and they all get alongwith the greatest respect for each other. i don't know why laypeople have such a hard timewith it.


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54557)by Epistemes » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:46 pm

While scholars are in agreement that the Pali Canon is the earliest Buddhist collection oftexts, has anyone defintively stated that the Buddha said these things? The textual, sourceand historical criticism of these texts would be interesting, but I, personally, would not liketo go there right now. For all we know, Shakyamuni was a myth created by Ananda orSariputta.


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54596)by PadmaVonSamba » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:20 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:There are those who not only limit "real buddhism" to the Pali texts, but assertthat only some of the Pali writings attributed to the Buddha are authenticteachings. I think one can accept that it is possible (either likely or unlikely)that the bulk of the Mahayana teachings, which bear very little resemblance tothe Pali texts, were composed later. However, whether that even matters ornot is another question. Thousands of years ago, some clever primate learnedhow to make fire. The fact that today I make fire by turning on a gas stovedoesn't make the fire today essentially different that what was ignited longago.

Epistemes wrote:

While scholars are in agreement that the Pali Canon is the earliest Buddhistcollection of texts, has anyone defintively stated that the Buddha said thesethings?











Yes, of course a lot of people have definitely stated that these are the words of the Buddha,and they probably are.But it cannot be proven by any method.Although nothing he said was actually written down until long after his death, It is said that people were highly trained in extremely accurate memorizationbut I don't know if there is really any evidence of that either.I mean, how could you prove it?"Thus I have heard" is about all there is, in terms of a statement of verification.



Then, for all intents and purposes, it's the same as saying we have no collection ofShakyamuni Buddha's actual words. It's all hypotheses. It's really a matter of taking the PaliCanon as Shakyamuni Buddha's words on faith.


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54630)by deepbluehum » Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:18 pm

This goes a little too far. Only faith will support the conclusion that the sutras are the actualwords of the historical man Gautama. However, are these the words of "The Buddha"? Whatis Buddha, in the broader metaphysical sense?

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Yes, of course a lot of people have definitely stated that these are the words ofthe Buddha, and they probably are.But it cannot be proven by any method.

Epistemes wrote:

Then, for all intents and purposes, it's the same as saying we have no collectionof Shakyamuni Buddha's actual words. It's all hypotheses. It's really a matter oftaking the Pali Canon as Shakyamuni Buddha's words on faith.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Yes, of course a lot of people have definitely stated that these are thewords of the Buddha, and they probably are.But it cannot be proven by any method.











For example, in the mode of the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha is not the 32 major and minormarks. The Buddha is not "is" or "is not." Then we get into the various Prajnaparamita sutrasthat describe Buddha as being like space. Aka the "buddha nature," "anatta/anatma," etc.

Then, "the Buddha's sutras" are those texts that describe the knowledge and methods torealize this "buddha nature." For example, the natural phenomena of karmic cause andeffect. The natural phenomena of impermanence. The natural phenomena of pleasure andsuffering. The natural phenomena of the mode of composite arising. In other words, thosetexts that describe the way buddha nature is seen and not seen.

Now, can these two notions of "buddha nature" and the mode of abiding phenomena beconsidered "natures"? I would assert, yes. These are fundamental descriptions of nature. Sohere, buddhism is removed from the category of "a faith," and enters into the realm of whatis true and false.

So I look at all the sutras and look for the hidden water mark of "buddha" in the text. Anyoneis "buddha" if they write from an authentic buddha perspective. Any sutra, even if it iswritten today, is authentic if it fits these criteria.



This is a very interesting perspective, and one I haven't considered.

So, any sutra ‐ not just the Pali Canon ‐ could be understood as being the actual words of acertain nature or essence, not a person. Words radiating out from the depth of wisdom foundin the buddha‐nature. The true litmus test of authenticity is practice, not historicity.

I still don't think this dispenses with the question: Are these the words of the Buddha? Arethey? Or are they the words of a successive line of bhikkhus?


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54645)by deepbluehum » Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:41 pm

deepbluehum wrote:This goes a little too far. Only faith will support the conclusion that the sutrasare the actual words of the historical man Gautama. However, are these thewords of "The Buddha"? What is Buddha, in the broader metaphysical sense?

So I look at all the sutras and look for the hidden water mark of "buddha" in thetext. Anyone is "buddha" if they write from an authentic buddha perspective.Any sutra, even if it is written today, is authentic if it fits these criteria.











No I answered this part too. If you mean the actual words of a historical person, then it isimpossible to say for certain. If you mean the authentic words of "Buddha" then the litmustest I offer is whether the text accurately points to the way to realize the nature. The Paliseems to offer a rather consistent style and message, though some passages are unusual, theParayana‐Vagga for example. Where other passages are lengthy and repetitive. These areconcise and pithy. Other passages are to bhikkus, but these are not. They are to various non‐bhikku folks. This leads one to make the assumption that Parayana‐Vagga could be pre‐sangha. That is interesting to me, because if they are pre‐sangha, they are pre‐refuge in the"Three Jewels." Then, don't they offer an authentic path to enlightenment? The texts seemsto indicate they do. So the refuge is one of an ultimate refuge, a special view and practice.Recognizing facts like this help one to see "buddha" in a wide‐angle lens, where refuge andvow has several possible layers of value, all of which are "authentic."


Re: Buddha Didnt Say It ! (#p54653)by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:25 am

Epistemes wrote:

This is a very interesting perspective, and one I haven't considered.

So, any sutra ‐ not just the Pali Canon ‐ could be understood as being theactual words of a certain nature or essence, not a person. Words radiating outfrom the depth of wisdom found in the buddha‐nature. The true litmus test ofauthenticity is practice, not historicity.

I still don't think this dispenses with the question: Are these the words of theBuddha? Are they? Or are they the words of a successive line of bhikkhus?

deepbluehum wrote:This goes a little too far. Only faith will support the conclusion that thesutras are the actual words of the historical man Gautama. However,are these the words of "The Buddha"? What is Buddha, in the broadermetaphysical sense?

So I look at all the sutras and look for the hidden water mark of"buddha" in the text. Anyone is "buddha" if they write from an authenticbuddha perspective. Any sutra, even if it is written today, is authentic ifit fits these criteria.

Epistemes wrote:

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Yes, of course a lot of people have definitely stated that these are thewords of the Buddha, and they probably are.But it cannot be proven by any method.







Yeah, of course. Unless you were there (and maybe we all were)! This really bothers alot of people, because they don't consider Buddhism to be a faith‐basedsystem. So then they think, "well, then what's the difference between this and say,Catholicism?"

So, here are two things to consider. the first is a question, and the second is an observation.:1.Why does it matter to you if what is called dharma is what the Buddha said?There are many good reasons why it could matter to someone. But to me, this is like beingconcerned with whether a painting is a genuine Rembrandt. There are valid reasons, but agood painting still hides a crack in the wall. So, I think this is a question people should askthemselves: "Does it matter to me, and if so, why?"

2. Catholicism, as random example, relies heavily on the premise that Jesus was bornmiraculously and died miraculously. Likewise, Moses talked to a burning shrubbery. Whatvalidates the teachings of a lot of religions is something which must be accepted on faith. Itcannot be tested or observed by the follower of that religion.

By contrast, the Buddha‐Dharma, if you can call it a religion, differs in that its very existencerelies on constant testing, practice and results. So, it doesn't matter whether PrinceSiddhartha was born out of his mom's side, or took seven steps when he was born, or floatedon a lotus, or radiated golden light or had wagon wheels on the soles of his feet or whatever. It doesn't actually matter that much that a lineage is unbroken all the way back to thehistorical Buddha, although many may make this claim, and it may be true. What matters isthat the teaching delivers. And what the teaching has to deliver is the perfect cessation ofmental suffering. Not conditional cessation, but a perfect cessation. An end to mentalstriving such that when it is realized, there is no going back.

So, to borrow from the expression, "if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck", if it ends 'samsaric'suffering, it's dharma....

TopDisplay posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending GoPost a reply11 posts • Page 1 of 1Return to Exploring BuddhismJump to: Exploring Buddhism Go

Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: Wayfarer, websat11 and 13 guests©2015 David N. Snyder, Ph.D., Vipassana Foundation in association with The Dhamma Encyclopedia

Dharma Wheel is associated with DhammaWheel.com, DhammaWiki.com, and TheDhamma.com..

Chat room>

Then, for all intents and purposes, it's the same as saying we have no collectionof Shakyamuni Buddha's actual words. It's all hypotheses. It's really a matter oftaking the Pali Canon as Shakyamuni Buddha's words on faith.

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=reply&f=77&t=5170

http://dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f=77

http://dharmawheel.net/viewonline.php



http://www.thedhamma.com/

http://www.dhammawiki.com/

http://www.dhammawheel.com/

http://dhammawiki.com/

http://thedhamma.com/

http://dharmawheel.net/chat/index.php

s

Documents

Transcript of s