Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:41 am
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:16 am
There are several people on the internet that outright reject parts of the tipitika, including large swathes of the suttas
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:49 am
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:43 am
So Paul, is it acceptable to you, as an individual, that I ask you to explain your reasoning for rejecting the entire Abhidhamma?
Primary that it wasn't conceived of until the Third Council, approximately three centuries after the Buddha's passing. There is more detail about its origins in The Great Abhidhamma Authenticity Debate if you're genuinely interested.

To me, that timespan alone makes it a Theravada teaching, in contrast to being the word of the Buddha, which is what I am really interested in... but as one of the "many Buddhists" referred to by DooDoot above, I "happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake."
It is also well worth remembering that the whole extant canon is not a collection of the words of the Buddha, but a recollection by Ananda and others what SOME of them were, further potentially modified by issues of transmission.

This not just allows, but mandates for critical thinking when reading the Suttas.

To make my point clear: 'critical thinking' is ***NOT*** the same as 'rejecting'.

This is not a subtle difference, by the way, as one crucial step to following the Noble Eightfold Path is Right Understanding, which can only follow the development of faith after having gained a sufficient amount of Right Knowledge. This is a process.

What this in detail might be is different for each individual until they have gained their own exact understanding of the True Dhamma by experiencing it -- as, unluckily, thinking about something seriously does not mean that one would reach automatically the right interpretation on the spot. Things would be easy if it were that way, no?

Until then, and it behooves to realize this while talking to others (whose individual progress on the path to Right Understanding is not knowable to anybody but themselves), it is never more than a matter of personal interpretation what the last Buddha might have meant: it is ***merely an opinion on the Dhamma***, not ever an expression of the Dhamma itself.
Those often hotly fought-over opinions, to be noted, are not a modern phenomenon, but have differed already wildly from the contemporaries and direct disciples of the Buddha onwards, who clearly were not in agreement on everything already right after his Parinibbāna.

So coming back to @Manopubbangama; what might be a critera to reject part of the Suttas? They are likely different for everybody. @retrofuturist has described his for the Abhidhamma; personally I get very careful with Suttas, when the Parallels show large differences or even have a storyline which seems inherently more logical. To know if anybody others' or my interpretation of things is "more right" will often be impossible to proove.

The only possible solution to this dilemma, according to the Buddha, would be the personal teaching of the complete True Dhamma by the realized Metteyya. As simply waiting for him is not likely a fruitful endeavour, making do with what my own intellectual and mental faculties allow, is my chosen way forward.
Fair enough.

You and I have not always agreed on everything, one thing you said that I disagreed with was:
It is quite interesting, to my mind, that this less threatened, more open view of womanhood spread very quickly throughout Sri Lanka and the whole of maritime Southeast Asia and was only centuries later overcome by Mahaviharan dogmatism (what we call nowadays 'Theravada').
So I respect your intellectual consistency in responding with a criteria which is parallels showing differences.

For this reason, the Samyutta is my favorite collection, btw, because I also enjoy this method. When it comes to parallels, it outweighs the Anguttara by quite a bit, also it is rich in pericopes that appear in other tipitika material.

Paul's idea hasn't been clarified yet and the idea that the abhidhamma is a result of the 3rd council is not even settled, but at least you guys attempted to respond instead of just hurling childish insults at someone who asks for internet board clarification.

We indeed know that the adminstrator here, Paul, outright rejects the abhidhamma but doesn't want to burn us at the stake who believe it has Dhammic merit, we don't know exactly why he rejects certain suttas and on what basis he rejects them.
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:59 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6226
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Aloka » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am

"Manopubbangama" wrote:it seems that the rejection of large swathes of the Tipitika appears to be largely a phenomena of British writers and Australian followers on the internet.
Do you have actual statistics for that, or is it just your opinion?

:anjali:

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:53 am

Aloka wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
"Manopubbangama" wrote:it seems that the rejection of large swathes of the Tipitika appears to be largely a phenomena of British writers and Australian followers on the internet.
Do you have actual statistics for that, or is it just your opinion?

:anjali:

Don't want to go off topic, but...

Most of the fundamentalist material that rejects certain parts of the tipitika quoted on this internet forum comes from British intellectuals and is swallowed and adhered to by Australian believers in these theories.

But back to topic.

User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Dan74-MkII » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:16 am

Aloka wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
"Manopubbangama" wrote:it seems that the rejection of large swathes of the Tipitika appears to be largely a phenomena of British writers and Australian followers on the internet.
Do you have actual statistics for that, or is it just your opinion?

:anjali:
I think it is a feature of being a disciple of Ajahn Chah, who didn't put much stock in Abhidhamma, if I recall correctly.

He also had a penchant for teaching from Zen scriptures, such as the Platform Sutra of Huineng.

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:38 am

Dan74-MkII wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:16 am
Aloka wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
"Manopubbangama" wrote:it seems that the rejection of large swathes of the Tipitika appears to be largely a phenomena of British writers and Australian followers on the internet.
Do you have actual statistics for that, or is it just your opinion?

:anjali:
I think it is a feature of being a disciple of Ajahn Chah, who didn't put much stock in Abhidhamma, if I recall correctly.

He also had a penchant for teaching from Zen scriptures, such as the Platform Sutra of Huineng.
Nothing wrong with likin' some zen!

I love me some zen.

I learned quite a bit from zen practicioners and find many of them to be far, far more intellectually consistent and spiritually advanced than the average salad-bar fundamentalist on the internet who claims to kind-of follow "the theravada" but only as long as it can be whatever parts of the suttas they like at the moment, and only through the ideological lens of some dilletante who also has some passing interest in this rusty, old, warnout 6-cylinder vehicle.

Again, watch the movie "The Beach" it shows to a "T" the special feeling that some narcissistic Western tourists get when they visit Thailand.

Most of these tourists come back and don't actually stay and learn Thai, but that is a digression. Point being is that Buddhism has been in Asia for 2600 years and they are at least 2600 times more mature than we are in their understanding.

We have quite some way to go, as evidenced in this thread.
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chownah
Posts: 8279
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by chownah » Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:10 pm

I think that one criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka is "it doesn't make sense".

I think that another criteria for rejecting parts of it is "the text seems to be of a later origin and is not contemporary with the buddha.

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "nearly everyone else rejects part of it and those who don't seem to be sort of extreme in their beliefs".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "the buddha was just a man and sometimes made mistakes".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "I have had not experience which makes me think that what the text describes is actual".

There are lots of different criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka.

I don't see why this is an important issue to discuss because it matters not to me if people reject parts or if they reject all of the tipitaka.....it has nothing to do with my practice.
chownah

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:23 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that one criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka is "it doesn't make sense".

I think that another criteria for rejecting parts of it is "the text seems to be of a later origin and is not contemporary with the buddha.

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "nearly everyone else rejects part of it and those who don't seem to be sort of extreme in their beliefs".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "the buddha was just a man and sometimes made mistakes".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "I have had not experience which makes me think that what the text describes is actual".

There are lots of different criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka.

I don't see why this is an important issue to discuss because it matters not to me if people reject parts or if they reject all of the tipitaka.....it has nothing to do with my practice.
chownah
I would agree with all of that.

The question is regarding a species of internet poster who reject others' suttanta quotes without justification while using suttanta quotes to justify their own views.

When pressed further they hurl insults at you and claim to be more spiritually advanced than you.

At the very least, these fundamentalist, spiritual tourists should be exposed for their lazy, narcissistic behaviour.

As you don't fit this description, I am in 100% agreement with your methodology.

chownah
Posts: 8279
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by chownah » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:37 pm

Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:23 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that one criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka is "it doesn't make sense".

I think that another criteria for rejecting parts of it is "the text seems to be of a later origin and is not contemporary with the buddha.

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "nearly everyone else rejects part of it and those who don't seem to be sort of extreme in their beliefs".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "the buddha was just a man and sometimes made mistakes".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "I have had not experience which makes me think that what the text describes is actual".

There are lots of different criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka.

I don't see why this is an important issue to discuss because it matters not to me if people reject parts or if they reject all of the tipitaka.....it has nothing to do with my practice.
chownah
I would agree with all of that.

The question is regarding a species of internet poster who reject others' suttanta quotes without justification while using suttanta quotes to justify their own views.

When pressed further they hurl insults at you and claim to be more spiritually advanced than you.

At the very least, these fundamentalist, spiritual tourists should be exposed for their lazy, narcissistic behaviour.

As you don't fit this description, I am in 100% agreement with your methodology.
Sorry I did not address your question more directly. That kind of a poster certainly must have some very active clinging aggregate action going on. I think it is a mistake to construct a self to underpin that behavior and it will be better to have compassion for the suffering which those aggregates are enabling and to develop equanimity surrounding the issue in general.

I guess you say that you should act (I say "should" because that is the word you used when you wrote "should be exposed") and I have no problem with that but I think that just as you should understand that the poster's actions proceed from clinging to aggregates you should also understand that your apparent need for action is a product of that same kind of clinging and you should be especially careful to not fall into the trap of ignorance by assuming that you have a self involved in some dispute.

You may very well already know about all that I have said and don't need a reminder. I posted this because I find myself falling into similar sorts of controversies and I must keep reminding myself that what is really happening is clinging and that there is neither any self to be dismayed about and nor any self to be dismayed.....so it is at least for me if not for you that I posted this....as yet another reminder to my "self".....
chownah

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Zom » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:45 pm

What are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
Hello.
This book helps answering this question, I think.
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... ticity.pdf

santa100
Posts: 3752
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by santa100 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:18 pm

DooDoot wrote:I don't reject 'rebirth'. But I do reject SN 15.13 as a teaching of the Buddha because I believe the teaching in it cannot bring the result in it. If I believe I was a water-buffalo in a past life, how can that end the taint of becoming; as described in SN 15.13?
Since you don't reject 'rebirth', I'd assume you don't reject rebirth as spanning uncountable lives since beginningless Samsara. But if that's an acceptable premise to you, then it's simply illogical to reject the teaching in SN 15.13. And we don't even need to resort to faith in the Dhamma and stuff just yet. Going by plain logic, given the premise that you accept rebirth, and that it spans countless life times, then SN 15.13's statement that one was born a water buffalo [once at the very least] in some previous life times is not a mathematical impossibility, it's an absolute 100% mathematical certainty.

About the message that the Dhamma is visible here and now, you need to provide the exact context to clarify what Dhamma that is exactly. Here's the excerpt from AN 6.47:
Then Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “‘The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, the Dhamma is visible here-&-now,’ it is said. To what extent is the Dhamma visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves?”

“Very well, then, Sivaka, I will ask you a question in return. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: When greed is present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is present within me’? And when greed is not present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is not present within me’?”...When aversion is present within you… When delusion is present within you… When a greedy quality is present within you… When an aversive quality is present within you…
So obviously the Buddha provided the exact context of what that Dhamma is to be verifiable in the here and now. The Dhamma is so vast such that some can be verified here and now, but some can be verified only after one's advanced far enough in his Sila/Samadhi/Panna cultivation. It'd be utterly absurd to dismiss things that one is yet able to verify. It's just as silly as a 5th grader who's only able to verify Algebra while unable to verify Calculus or Differential Equations to reject the entire field of advanced mathematics simply because he can't "verify it in the here and now"!

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:35 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:37 pm
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:23 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:10 pm
I think that one criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka is "it doesn't make sense".

I think that another criteria for rejecting parts of it is "the text seems to be of a later origin and is not contemporary with the buddha.

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "nearly everyone else rejects part of it and those who don't seem to be sort of extreme in their beliefs".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "the buddha was just a man and sometimes made mistakes".

I think that another criteria for rejecting part of it is "I have had not experience which makes me think that what the text describes is actual".

There are lots of different criteria for rejecting parts of the tipitaka.

I don't see why this is an important issue to discuss because it matters not to me if people reject parts or if they reject all of the tipitaka.....it has nothing to do with my practice.
chownah
I would agree with all of that.

The question is regarding a species of internet poster who reject others' suttanta quotes without justification while using suttanta quotes to justify their own views.

When pressed further they hurl insults at you and claim to be more spiritually advanced than you.

At the very least, these fundamentalist, spiritual tourists should be exposed for their lazy, narcissistic behaviour.

As you don't fit this description, I am in 100% agreement with your methodology.
Sorry I did not address your question more directly. That kind of a poster certainly must have some very active clinging aggregate action going on. I think it is a mistake to construct a self to underpin that behavior and it will be better to have compassion for the suffering which those aggregates are enabling and to develop equanimity surrounding the issue in general.

I guess you say that you should act (I say "should" because that is the word you used when you wrote "should be exposed") and I have no problem with that but I think that just as you should understand that the poster's actions proceed from clinging to aggregates you should also understand that your apparent need for action is a product of that same kind of clinging and you should be especially careful to not fall into the trap of ignorance by assuming that you have a self involved in some dispute.

You may very well already know about all that I have said and don't need a reminder. I posted this because I find myself falling into similar sorts of controversies and I must keep reminding myself that what is really happening is clinging and that there is neither any self to be dismayed about and nor any self to be dismayed.....so it is at least for me if not for you that I posted this....as yet another reminder to my "self".....
chownah
Thank you friend for your thoughtful post.

There is no separating a fool from their folly.

Its not wise to waste time on such people; they are far too common in this world. :namaste:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12532
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by DNS » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:08 pm

Zom wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:45 pm
What are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
Hello.
This book helps answering this question, I think.
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... ticity.pdf
:thumbsup: Yes, this was a good analytical work. Similar findings about 100 years ago with Rhys Davids:
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/1-10_e ... Pali_Canon

Authentic books:
The first four Nikayas in their entirety are Buddhavacana, DN, SN, MN, AN

plus the following books from the Khuddaka Nikaya:
Dhammapada,
Udana,
Itivuttaka,
Sutta Nipata,
Theragatha, and
Therigatha;
and the Patimokkha from the Vinaya.

But I understand the OP's concerns because there are some who will pick and choose even from the first four Nikayas to fit their preconceived views and opinions.

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:58 pm

DNS wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:08 pm
Zom wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:45 pm
What are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
Hello.
This book helps answering this question, I think.
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... ticity.pdf
:thumbsup: Yes, this was a good analytical work. Similar findings about 100 years ago with Rhys Davids:
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/1-10_e ... Pali_Canon

Authentic books:
The first four Nikayas in their entirety are Buddhavacana, DN, SN, MN, AN

plus the following books from the Khuddaka Nikaya:
Dhammapada,
Udana,
Itivuttaka,
Sutta Nipata,
Theragatha, and
Therigatha;
and the Patimokkha from the Vinaya.

But I understand the OP's concerns because there are some who will pick and choose even from the first four Nikayas to fit their preconceived views and opinions.
Yes, to be precise and for the record, I agree for the most part with Rhys Davids and the later work as well: it seems very self-evident to me from the parallels of the Samyutta that this is very early material. For that we owe a debt of gratitude to Chinese scholar Yin Shun who did quite a bit of linguistic legwork in verifying the parallels between the Nikayas and agamas.
Its hard to imagine that the memorization of pericopes didn't have anything to do with oral transmission.
While there are indeed several savants who have memorized the entire Pali Canon in the 20th century, I'm not sure early banakas practiced this, but instead possibly memorized different sections of the Tipitika. There were cave inscriptions in India of banakas that were dedicated exclusively to different nikayas, yet I am unaware of the existence of Tipitakadhara Tipiíakakovidas in the ancient world other than Ananda. This could be due more to my own ignorance than to the evidence of their existence; I just am not aware of them if they existed.

The thread itself is based on two existing phenomena: 1) arbitrary rejection of sutta while quoting sutta as "evidence" without an explanation, and the fundamentalist view of quoting "scholars." Example being, saying that the Abhidhamma appeared 'out of nowhere' in the 3rd Buddhist council, while being ignorant of the evidence that it was present in the 1st Buddhist council, yet still rejecting it, probably because it is too complex for some people to swallow and therefore the outright rejection makes things easier for intellectual digestion.

While fundamentalists will seek to shut down conversations with ad-hominums, I think rational people know and truly are capable of understanding that all inferential methodology of stacking EBTs in chronological order just add up as percentage points to the hypothesis and that none of us mortals will probably ever be 100% certain of exactly what the Buddha's exact words were.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2427
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by rightviewftw » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:21 pm

DNS wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:08 pm
Authentic books:
The first four Nikayas in their entirety are Buddhavacana, DN, SN, MN, AN

plus the following books from the Khuddaka Nikaya:
Dhammapada,
Udana,
Itivuttaka,
Sutta Nipata,
Theragatha, and
Therigatha;
and the Patimokkha from the Vinaya.
As far as i know this is correct and in 2500+ years nobody has ever made a beyond reasonable doubt type of case for rejection of even a part of a Sutta or the Abhidhamma by cross reference with the Sutta Pitaka.

Therefore when members of Dhammawheel reject Sutta by calling them "a later genre" that is just not worthy of being taken seriously and when admins are expressing approval of such ideas that is just a cause for concern.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Manopubbangama » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:22 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:18 pm
DooDoot wrote:I don't reject 'rebirth'. But I do reject SN 15.13 as a teaching of the Buddha because I believe the teaching in it cannot bring the result in it. If I believe I was a water-buffalo in a past life, how can that end the taint of becoming; as described in SN 15.13?
Since you don't reject 'rebirth', I'd assume you don't reject rebirth as spanning uncountable lives since beginningless Samsara. But if that's an acceptable premise to you, then it's simply illogical to reject the teaching in SN 15.13. And we don't even need to resort to faith in the Dhamma and stuff just yet. Going by plain logic, given the premise that you accept rebirth, and that it spans countless life times, then SN 15.13's statement that one was born a water buffalo [once at the very least] in some previous life times is not a mathematical impossibility, it's an absolute 100% mathematical certainty.

About the message that the Dhamma is visible here and now, you need to provide the exact context to clarify what Dhamma that is exactly. Here's the excerpt from AN 6.47:
Then Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “‘The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, the Dhamma is visible here-&-now,’ it is said. To what extent is the Dhamma visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves?”

“Very well, then, Sivaka, I will ask you a question in return. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: When greed is present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is present within me’? And when greed is not present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is not present within me’?”...When aversion is present within you… When delusion is present within you… When a greedy quality is present within you… When an aversive quality is present within you…
So obviously the Buddha provided the exact context of what that Dhamma is to be verifiable in the here and now. The Dhamma is so vast such that some can be verified here and now, but some can be verified only after one's advanced far enough in his Sila/Samadhi/Panna cultivation. It'd be utterly absurd to dismiss things that one is yet able to verify. It's just as silly as a 5th grader who's only able to verify Algebra while unable to verify Calculus or Differential Equations to reject the entire field of advanced mathematics simply because he can't "verify it in the here and now"!
Very well put, friend. :anjali:

This is why a faith-follower has not touched nibanna yet, but can still infer its existence and puts trust in the triple gem.

Dogmatic revisionist followers have not yet reached the level of faith-follower, which is why the are so filled with wrong speech; because it stems from wrong view.
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kamui and 147 guests