daverupa wrote:The fact is, these speculations are in an altogether different direction than that of appropriate attention.
Metta,
Retro.
daverupa wrote:The fact is, these speculations are in an altogether different direction than that of appropriate attention.
I don't think that these are speculations.The fact is, these speculations are in an altogether different direction than that of appropriate attention.
Maybe "India" here refers to "holy land", and not to that geographical entity that we commonly call "India."hgg wrote: Why did he always choose India?
Read the poster's other concerns:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,daverupa wrote:The fact is, these speculations are in an altogether different direction than that of appropriate attention.
hgg wrote:Then, how will you be able to decide what is true and what is not in the accounts of Buddha ?I don't take the rebirth stories as literal truth. The stories do not agree with what we know of the history of the planet.
If some of the accounts are not true, then more might be false.
How will you be sure for example that there are 31 planes of existence and not only one?
It is very important for a theory to be sound in order to inspire confidence.
If we cannot account for this possible discrepancy in Buddha's rebirths,
the validity of the theory of rebirths might be shaken.
I shall take that as both fraudulent + effective strategy to preserve and spread the heart of dhamma, the 4noble truth as it spells. Thanks for explaining.daverupa wrote: The underlined portion is probably a mistake, since it judges the centuries-long composition of this oral material according to modern historical values, rather than according to then-standard mythical pedagogies and narratives. The oral tradition was such that the reciters were also encouraged to make inferences and connections with the material, and the nature of the recitations would have been such that a reciter would have easily imputed "obvious" additions - ones which felt readily apparent and valid, but which to our way of thinking were unoriginal.
We also ought to remember that the Sangha existed in a context of other groups who vied for social support, so the narrative formats would have been aligned with lay interests and lay conceptions of the cosmos - indeed, since the Buddha left so much undeclared that puthujjana find enticing, it would have been a matter of course to flesh out the conceptions of worlds and beings and whatnot according to prevailing cultural values.
Was this derogatory comment an example of acting with appropriate attention?daverupa wrote:Indeed, it's all very woo-woo.
We tend to go back and forth on this sort of topic occasionally; smugly taking the moral high ground is something of a contradiction, but you make a good point so long as 'cynical' & 'derisive' describe my motives - but surely you wouldn't presume, up there as you are.Nyana wrote:Was this derogatory comment an example of acting with appropriate attention?
There's a whole lot of open space between dogmatic literalism and cynical derision. You should check it out sometime.
Well, you did:daverupa wrote:Too bad I said nothing else about the topic, else we might have had something relevant to discuss.
It seems you're suggesting that dhamma narratives were developed by reciters motivated by what the puthujjana would find enticing. But why should these dhamma narratives be relegated to such lowly status -- being segregated from Buddhavacana and not relevant to noble disciples? Why should anyone accept a post-modern relativistic revision of Buddhist history? Might there be more intelligent and compelling ways to relate to this narrative material than by dismissing it as "woo-woo"?daverupa wrote:The underlined portion is probably a mistake, since it judges the centuries-long composition of this oral material according to modern historical values, rather than according to then-standard mythical pedagogies and narratives. The oral tradition was such that the reciters were also encouraged to make inferences and connections with the material, and the nature of the recitations would have been such that a reciter would have easily imputed "obvious" additions - ones which felt readily apparent and valid, but which to our way of thinking were unoriginal.
We also ought to remember that the Sangha existed in a context of other groups who vied for social support, so the narrative formats would have been aligned with lay interests and lay conceptions of the cosmos - indeed, since the Buddha left so much undeclared that puthujjana find enticing, it would have been a matter of course to flesh out the conceptions of worlds and beings and whatnot according to prevailing cultural values.
Failed sarcasm (and the general snarky tone as well - I am sorry for these both).Nyana wrote:Well, you did:daverupa wrote:Too bad I said nothing else about the topic, else we might have had something relevant to discuss.
Why should anyone prefer a pre-modern mythical scholastic creation of Buddhist history?Why should anyone accept a post-modern relativistic revision of Buddhist history?
Sure; what you quoted from my earlier post is an example of one way to go about it. There are others, and you seem to have done something about it according to your own predilections. We might all benefit from hearing you talk about that, instead of the current approach.Might there be more intelligent and compelling ways to relate to this narrative material than by dismissing it as "woo-woo"?
Research into the technology of the Buddhist oral traditions suggests a complex and somewhat fluid process of transmission and sutta creation. Not much, if anything, seems to have been intentionally left out, but additions were a different matter and, without explicit barriers to it, there would be no need for encouragement.alan wrote:Must also say that the reciters of the Suttas were not encouraged to comment or add anything. Their purpose was just to remember, and pass it on.
~350 years of transmission is a long time, but perhaps the Nikayas did spring into being fully formed as we see them today, with only accidental differences (Agama differences and so forth). I don't think this is very likely, however.Not sure how this idea came about that additions where made at the early stages.
Well, doesn't this characterization of dhamma narratives as "pre-modern mythical scholastic creation[s]" already presuppose postmodern assumptions? The Buddha is on record explicitly asserting these narratives. And other than these records of discourses, we don't know what the Buddha may have thought or said on this subject one way or the other.daverupa wrote:Why should anyone prefer a pre-modern mythical scholastic creation of Buddhist history?Why should anyone accept a post-modern relativistic revision of Buddhist history?
It's a big subject. Is a secular framework the only way to enter the noble path in this day and age? Is a secular framework ever an efficacious way to approach the dhammavinaya? There are numerous modern examples of traditional ascetic Theravāda practitioners who have gone very far towards the goal or possibly even reached the goal in this life. But I've yet to come across one such example among secular revisionists, even though there is at least one person who claims to be an arahant, and who, quite conveniently, also claims that there's no need for an arahant to abstain from lust or sex.daverupa wrote:Sure; what you quoted from my earlier post is an example of one way to go about it. There are others, and you seem to have done something about it according to your own predilections. We might all benefit from hearing you talk about that, instead of the current approach.Might there be more intelligent and compelling ways to relate to this narrative material than by dismissing it as "woo-woo"?