Do you believe in the infallibility of the Buddha's word?

[dylanj]

Greetings Dylan,

What do I vote for if I think his word was infallible vis-a-vis the Dhamma and the four noble truths... but not necessarily infallible in other respects, such as geography, astronomy, history etc. which aren't directly connected to dukkha and nirodha?

Metta,
Paul.

I voted no because I think similarly to you. I think the Buddha could use technically inaccurate cultural knowledge to illustrate the dhamma.

Take the fire element:

And what is the fire element? The fire element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior fire element? Anything that’s fire, fiery, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior fire element. The interior fire element and the exterior fire element are just the fire element. This should be truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper understanding, you reject the fire element, detaching the mind from the fire element.

https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato

There is no fire that digests food and drink. In fact, it isn’t even temperature that digests. If anything the digestive process is more related to the water/liquid element than to fire or heat.

Everyone, take a look here at how digestion actually works:

https://www.iffgd.org/the-digestive-system.html

It seems that the commentaries and modern commentators, including EBT enthusiasts such as Ven Anālayo, try to interpret the elements as if they were experiential properties but this is wrong on a simple reading:

Ven. Anālayo:

The next contemplation, concerned with the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind, can be undertaken through a scanning similar to that employed for skin, flesh, and bones. One scan of the whole body can be undertaken to sense hardness as the manifestation of the earth element. This is particularly evident in the bones, although some degree of hardness is found throughout the body. The next scan would then be for wetness as a manifestation of the water element.11 Wetness also pervades the whole body, but is most easily discerned in the various liquids found in the fleshy parts of the body. The fire element in the form of warmth is the object of the next scan, in the sense of the different degrees of temperature in various parts of the body. This is particularly easily discernible at the skin level, although it is of course also a feature of the whole body. The final scan then takes up the wind element, representative of movement, which covers any motion of or in the body. The most prominent manifestation of motion during sitting meditation will probably be the breath.

http://media.dharmaseed.org/documents/E ... hana_2.pdf

The understanding of the elements above is anachronistic to the suttas which state:

And what is the air element? The air element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior air element? Anything that’s wind, windy, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes winds that go up or down, winds in the belly or the bowels, winds that flow through the limbs, in-breaths and out-breaths, or anything else that’s air, airy, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual

The suttas are not talking about abstract notions, they’re talking about burps, farts, general intestinal gas, an inaccurate ancient idea about wind in the limbs that doesn’t exist, and breathing.

If we think the Buddha has to be perfectly knowledgeable about anatomy, physics, geography, or what-have-you then we might as well pack our bags and go home because the meditation on the 4 elements is clearly a less accurate model of physical stuff than what we use now. But I’d say who cares, because the point the Buddha makes with the 4 elements is true, namely that our bodies and the external environment is made of the same stuff and if we see that deeply then we can realize the not-self nature of the body.

I’m not committed to the idea that the Buddha took ancient Ayurvedic ideas as absolute truth though, but it seems from the texts that he did at least use contemporary (to him) models to illustrate the dhamma. The Buddha says in a different context something that I think is applicable generally when he is using his own culture’s conceptual schemes to teach the dhamma:

"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

That being said, I don’t mean that he didn’t teach rebirth or that it’s all a metaphor or anything like that. But I do think the texts strongly suggest that he used inaccurate physical, medical and geographical information to illustrate points here and there.

Do you think modern physiological science is complete & perfected? Do you think it's infallible? I certainly don't & would not be the least bit surprised if discoveries were made in the future that changed the dominant perspective on these processes.

[Sam Vara]

Do you think modern physiological science is complete & perfected? Do you think it's infallible? I certainly don't & would not be the least bit surprised if discoveries were made in the future that changed the dominant perspective on these processes.

I don't think many people would consider modern physiological science to be complete and perfected. But isn't a more relevant question whether we think it less fallible than the physiological knowledge referred to by the Buddha? If theories of wind in the limbs actually worked when applied to medical treatments, why don't modern doctors subscribe to them?

[dylanj]

Do you think modern physiological science is complete & perfected? Do you think it's infallible? I certainly don't & would not be the least bit surprised if discoveries were made in the future that changed the dominant perspective on these processes.

I don't think many people would consider modern physiological science to be complete and perfected. But isn't a more relevant question whether we think it less fallible than the physiological knowledge referred to by the Buddha? If theories of wind in the limbs actually worked when applied to medical treatments, why don't modern doctors subscribe to them?

The Buddha never said they work when applied to medical treatments.

[Sam Vara]

The Buddha never said they work when applied to medical treatments.

Did he say, or even imply, that there could be any verification of them?

[User1249x]

Dhp 353

All-conquering,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?

[dylanj]

Dhp 353

All-conquering,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?

[dylanj]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

I don't care about scientists. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with them - they are the priests of the materialist religion. They are deluded beings following their own inclinations & biases with financial, political, social & cultural biases. & the "conclusions" of science are constantly, endlessly being erased & rewritten because of the extremely fallible nature of scientific experimentation.

[User1249x]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

If someone told me that the Buddha told the earth was flat and i could not disprove it i would believe it.

[dylanj]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

If someone told me that the Buddha told the earth was flat and i could not disprove it i would believe it.

right, what i meant is if i was face-to-face with him, but what you said applies also

[Sam Vara]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

Why would you believe it? This is a genuine question based on a desire to understand your viewpoint. What is it that you know or believe of the Buddha that would make him an incontrovertible authority on any subject? Is it that you know him to be right on some things, and you extrapolate that rightness to all things? Or is it something different?

[User1249x]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

If someone told me that the Buddha told the earth was flat and i could not disprove it i would believe it.

right, what i meant is if i was face-to-face with him, but what you said applies also

what i meant is that for example in regards to the "alleged corruption" in the Sutta, i still hold them as truth in entirety unless something would stand out as a contradiction i see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the message.

[Pseudobabble]

As the suttas I quoted earlier show the Buddha certainly taught of his own infallibility.

Assuming the suttas are exactly what the Buddha said.

[dylanj]

If someone told me that the Buddha told the earth was flat and i could not disprove it i would believe it.

right, what i meant is if i was face-to-face with him, but what you said applies also

what i meant is that for example in regards to the "alleged corruption" in the Sutta, i still hold them as truth in entirety unless something would stand out as a contradiction i see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the message.

oh yes, me too, i think they need to be proven guilty

[Pseudobabble]

If the Buddha told me the Earth is flat I would believe it.

[dharmacorps]

Even if the Buddha, who lived and died almost 2600 years ago, was infallible as a teacher, what we are seeing here is us followers of the religion are extremely fallible.