Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:51 am
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
That's an interesting statement. Care to expand on that? For example, we could read Bhikkhu Bodhi's various articles about Buddhism and get a vision of Buddhism. In what ways do you see that as distorted?Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.
Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.
So how do we assess the level of distortion in a particular approach?Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.
Investigation, the second "Factor of Awakening".porpoise wrote:So how do we assess the level of distortion in a particular approach?Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.
What he is teaching doesnt look like buddhism to me, he should call it something else.There would be nothing wrong if Batchelor simply rejected the authenticity of the Buddha’s enlightenment and the core of his teachings, but instead he rejects the most reliable accounts of the Buddha’s vision and replaces it with his own, while then projecting it on the Buddha that exists only in his imagination.
Unfortunately we have no perfect way apart from practicing the best we know and reaping pragmatic results. What is left is living tradition and guidance of living, or recently deceased Ajahns (through writtings of their teaching). The Buddha didn't leave video or audio recordings. I don't even know that He existed, though I do believe despite the lack of hard evidence.porpoise wrote:So how do we assess the level of distortion in a particular approach?Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.
The Ashoka's pillars (supposedly built centuries after the Buddha) contain very little, and very general Dhamma.The climate of Theravāda countries is not conducive to the survival of manuscripts. Apart from brief quotations in inscriptions and a two-page fragment from the eighth or ninth century found in Nepal, the oldest manuscripts known are from late in the fifteenth century,[41] and there is not very much from before the eighteenth.[42]link
Gāndhārī is not pāli and neither is it Theravādin, it is Dharmaguptaka school. And it is still ~5 centuries after the Buddha's death.The Gandhāran Buddhist texts are the oldest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered, dating from about the 1st century CE.[1] They are written in Gāndhārī, and are possibly the oldest extant Indic texts altogether. link
We have Ashoka's edicts dated to about 250 BCE and the the British Museum Scrolls you quoted to about the 1st century CE. That is pretty hard evidence, although still a few hundred years after Buddha's paranibbana.Alex123 wrote:Gāndhārī is not pali and neither is it Theravada. And it is still ~5 centuries after the Buddha's death.The Gandhāran Buddhist texts are the oldest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered, dating from about the 1st century CE.[1] They are written in Gāndhārī, and are possibly the oldest extant Indic texts altogether. link
See above, we do have some hard evidence much earlier than the 15th century.Alex123 wrote: We have very little (if any) hard evidence about the Theravada and pali teaching prior to 15th century, about 2000 after the Buddha!
True, but (in my opinion) this does not give some modern scholars free license to re-write Buddhism completely to fit their views, for example to claim that the Buddha did not teach anatta, rebirth, etc.Alex123 wrote: Lots of places for typos, omissions, and mistakes!
I bolded the important part. And what do Ashoka's edicts teach? Do they teach Theravada or other scholastic doctrine?David N. Snyder wrote:We have Ashoka's edicts dated to about 250 BCE and the the British Museum Scrolls you quoted to about the 1st century CE. That is pretty hard evidence, although still a few hundred years after Buddha's paranibbana.
Still those fragments are centuries later than the Buddha. A century is a long time for doctrine and interpretations to evolve.David N. Snyder wrote: See above, we do have some hard evidence much earlier than the 15th century.
Right. Those need to call the new teaching to be their own rather than the Buddha's. But with all of that said, we don't know what Buddha (if He even existed) has actually vocally said, and in which dialect. We have fragments of Buddhist teaching that dates centuries after Buddha's death.David N. Snyder wrote: True, but (in my opinion) this does not give some modern scholars free license to re-write Buddhism completely to fit their views, for example to claim that the Buddha did not teach anatta, rebirth, etc.
Instead of 'distortions', I would rather say 'adaptions'. The Dhamma is adapted to the society, culture and person. This happened already at the time of the Buddha, when he debated with brahmans and ascetics, when he gave Vinaya rules motivated by a wish to keep up respect for the bhikkhus among the lay folk.Ben wrote:I think most, if not all visions of Buddhism are distortions. Some visions more distorted than others.