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 »

rightviewftw wrote:
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.
Not to go off-topic, but the Abhidhamma helps me understand suttanta.

Otherwise I wouldn't read it because I concur with most westerners that the material is dry.

But reading it in alignment and correlation with the Suttas gives one a microscopic view of what dhammas the Buddha is referring to.

User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by JamesTheGiant »

Did anyone mention The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts
by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
It's a whole book examining just this question. Assuming people want to actually answer this question instead of just arguing about it.
Here it is in an attachment below... No that didn't work, it's too big.
Last edited by JamesTheGiant on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by JamesTheGiant »

Hmm the attachment didn't seem to work... Here's a direct download link to the 158 page pdf book
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... ticity.pdf

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by Zom »

while being ignorant of the evidence that it was present in the 1st Buddhist council
It was not. And no, there are no such evidences, rather, vice versa, all evidences show that Abhidhamma is a later scholarly work, appeared gradually, layer by layer (and developed independently in those early schools which accepted it as an important text; though, as it is known, not all schools did that - sautrantika rejected it outright).

rightviewftw
Posts: 2432
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by rightviewftw »

Zom wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:29 am
while being ignorant of the evidence that it was present in the 1st Buddhist council
It was not. And no, there are no such evidences, rather, vice versa, all evidences show that Abhidhamma is a later scholarly work, appeared gradually, layer by layer (and developed independently in those early schools which accepted it as an important text; though, as it is known, not all schools did that - sautrantika rejected it outright).
afaik sautrantika themselves were founded in the 1st century, hardly an early school

As for rejecting Tipitaka imho;
one needs to be skilled at inference to first infer the meaning and analyze the early texts for contradictions and points of controversy, if one achieves a general understanding of the universal principles one can then use this understanding and the teachings known to be true as a razor for eliminating that which is not in accord with these principles.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22905
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings RightViewFTW,
rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:18 am
one needs to be skilled at inference to first infer the meaning and analyze the early texts for contradictions and points of controversy, if one achieves a general understanding of the universal principles one can then use this understanding and the teachings known to be true as a razor for eliminating that which is not in accord with these principles.
What happens if you apply this liberty of method to DooDoot's questioning of the water-buffalo Dhamma of SN 15.13? Is this not in fact what he has done? If not, please explain the difference and/or double standard.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by AgarikaJ »

Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:41 am
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.
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.
@Manopubbangama, those two things should not be mixed up, if you want clear and helpful (for you) answers to your question.

One is a critical analysis of the Pali canon leading to a practice best suited to the one doing it. The other is a critical engagement of how "Theravada" through the ages has interpreted said canon and interacts with the world around it nowadays.

Now it is my view that the 'Mahaviran dogmatism' I have written about took away a lot of the culturally valuable and enriching traditions that have developed in Maritime South-East Asia, in interaction with the spirit of the teachings, so is to my mind not always a good reflection of the True Dhamma. It is in my own opinion not a more orthodox view of the Dhamma (as "Theravada" often prides itself), it is a diminished, overly rigid one.
This feeling of me is also based on the fact that much of modern Theravada actually does not look at the Suttas at all but is often more concerned with some nearly-modern commentaries to them, which has fostered a worldview that is restricted -- and to my mind is not always paying due respect to the openness the Buddha showed when interacting with the people around him and a discernment for the subtleness of his teaching tailored exactly to the specific situations he encountered.

This has close to nothing to do with the Pali Suttas as written, but in turn restricts the whole intellectual discourse and sets all too often a bad ground tone in a discussion, as it can force people to go at things with a dry, limited, legalistic attitude devoid of being able to give any intellectual leeway and to allow for the fact that they have nothing more than one of several possible interpretations to offer (case in point, that people react aggressive and feel that somehow their practice or they have been criticized personally when the above is nothing more than a very general statement).
What this can lead to -- and I observe this often on this very forum -- is that those who seem the most knowledgeable in the actual Suttas are harsh in their speech to the point that I have to question if they have actually internalized even the precepts or have understood that the expression of practising the Dhamma can only be amity, benevolence and equanimity instead of combativeness.

While others base their whole argument on a position coming from some local tradition, and it becomes obvious from their whole line of argumentation that they have never once reflected on the fact, that they are actually only fighting to be right in a maybe unfounded opinion, one of many competing and similarly unfounded ones (they might of course be very right, but as I said earlier, most of the times it will be impossible to ever proove who is 'more right', as the facts are lost in time).

Both phenomena are sides of the same coin. But to confound controversy over cultural tradition with an argument about the validity or not of any part of the Pali canon is a mistake that leads to only more confusion and acrimony instead of more clarity.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

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 »

AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:30 am
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:41 am
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.
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.
@Manopubbangama, those two things should not be mixed up, if you want clear and helpful (for you) answers to your question.

One is a critical analysis of the Pali canon leading to a practice best suited to the one doing it. The other is a critical engagement of how "Theravada" through the ages has interpreted said canon and interacts with the world around it nowadays.

Now it is my view that the 'Mahaviran dogmatism' I have written about took away a lot of the culturally valuable and enriching traditions that have developed in Maritime South-East Asia, in interaction with the spirit of the teachings, so is to my mind not always a good reflection of the True Dhamma. It is in my own opinion not a more orthodox view of the Dhamma (as "Theravada" often prides itself), it is a diminished, overly rigid one.
This feeling of me is also based on the fact that much of modern Theravada actually does not look at the Suttas at all but is often more concerned with some nearly-modern commentaries to them, which has fostered a worldview that is restricted -- and to my mind is not always paying due respect to the openness the Buddha showed when interacting with the people around him and a discernment for the subtleness of his teaching tailored exactly to the specific situations he encountered.

This has close to nothing to do with the Pali Suttas as written, but in turn restricts the whole intellectual discourse and sets all too often a bad ground tone in a discussion, as it can force people to go at things with a dry, limited, legalistic attitude devoid of being able to give any intellectual leeway and to allow for the fact that they have nothing more than one of several possible interpretations to offer (case in point, that people react aggressive and feel that somehow their practice or they have been criticized personally when the above is nothing more than a very general statement).
What this can lead to -- and I observe this often on this very forum -- is that those who seem the most knowledgeable in the actual Suttas are harsh in their speech to the point that I have to question if they have actually internalized even the precepts or have understood that the expression of practising the Dhamma can only be amity, benevolence and equanimity instead of combativeness.

While others base their whole argument on a position coming from some local tradition, and it becomes obvious from their whole line of argumentation that they have never once reflected on the fact, that they are actually only fighting to be right in a maybe unfounded opinion, one of many competing and similarly unfounded ones (they might of course be very right, but as I said earlier, most of the times it will be impossible to ever proove who is 'more right', as the facts are lost in time).

Both phenomena are sides of the same coin. But to confound controversy over cultural tradition with an argument about the validity or not of any part of the Pali canon is a mistake that leads to only more confusion and acrimony instead of more clarity.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:30 am
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:47 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:41 am
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.
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.
@Manopubbangama, those two things should not be mixed up, if you want clear and helpful (for you) answers to your question.

One is a critical analysis of the Pali canon leading to a practice best suited to the one doing it. The other is a critical engagement of how "Theravada" through the ages has interpreted said canon and interacts with the world around it nowadays.

Now it is my view that the 'Mahaviran dogmatism' I have written about took away a lot of the culturally valuable and enriching traditions that have developed in Maritime South-East Asia, in interaction with the spirit of the teachings, so is to my mind not always a good reflection of the True Dhamma. It is in my own opinion not a more orthodox view of the Dhamma (as "Theravada" often prides itself), it is a diminished, overly rigid one.
This feeling of me is also based on the fact that much of modern Theravada actually does not look at the Suttas at all but is often more concerned with some nearly-modern commentaries to them, which has fostered a worldview that is restricted -- and to my mind is not always paying due respect to the openness the Buddha showed when interacting with the people around him and a discernment for the subtleness of his teaching tailored exactly to the specific situations he encountered.

This has close to nothing to do with the Pali Suttas as written, but in turn restricts the whole intellectual discourse and sets all too often a bad ground tone in a discussion, as it can force people to go at things with a dry, limited, legalistic attitude devoid of being able to give any intellectual leeway and to allow for the fact that they have nothing more than one of several possible interpretations to offer (case in point, that people react aggressive and feel that somehow their practice or they have been criticized personally when the above is nothing more than a very general statement).
What this can lead to -- and I observe this often on this very forum -- is that those who seem the most knowledgeable in the actual Suttas are harsh in their speech to the point that I have to question if they have actually internalized even the precepts or have understood that the expression of practising the Dhamma can only be amity, benevolence and equanimity instead of combativeness.

While others base their whole argument on a position coming from some local tradition, and it becomes obvious from their whole line of argumentation that they have never once reflected on the fact, that they are actually only fighting to be right in a maybe unfounded opinion, one of many competing and similarly unfounded ones (they might of course be very right, but as I said earlier, most of the times it will be impossible to ever proove who is 'more right', as the facts are lost in time).

Both phenomena are sides of the same coin. But to confound controversy over cultural tradition with an argument about the validity or not of any part of the Pali canon is a mistake that leads to only more confusion and acrimony instead of more clarity.
Thats totally fair; the idea that you don't adhere to the entirety of the Theravadin vehicle as it has been passed down to us now; at least you have a valid criteria and not arbitrary, which suits your fancy at any given moment.

Regarding the "cultural enrichment" that came before Theravada, I think we could start a new thread about it as its not really what this one is about. As you are aware there are two kinds of ways one could interpret this, and I am totally not judging you as belonging to either school: one is that someone could find some really cool libertine idea they dig and use it as an excuse to not follow the vehicle, as it is, the small, weak old Hinayana, and then claim their way is superior; the internetz has hundreds of these geniuses, or someone could apply critical thinking and use inferential insight to say "you know what? maybe the Theravada is lacking in something." Heck, I love some Mahayana so I get that.

You don't have to do it, but if you feel like it, I'd love to hear your views on the cultural enriching features of the culture before Theravada; heck my views are works in progress just like everyone elses. Afterall, it was me who brought up a topic from another thread, so the onus is on me if I feel desire further clarification, I'm just saying that I find your views to be logically consistent and therefore I value hearing them elaborated for intellectual digestion.

The overall tone of this board has nothing to do with theravada, imo, there are not that many theravadins here, and trolls who are allowed leeway to sour the tone due to personal friendships with people with editorial powers, so that is why there is such a soar tone on this board, its not Theravada's fault. What you have is 'true believers' like the Taliban that follow revisionist cults that insult the Theravadins left and right. Its corruption but hey you pay for what you get all too often in this world.

Either way, I don't feel that the rusty old vehicle is the only path and all others 'go to hell' I think there are many, many valid types of meditation and I have friends who do all different kinds with no Inquisitorial purity-tests needed for doctrine.

rightviewftw
Posts: 2432
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by rightviewftw »

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 am
Greetings RightViewFTW,
rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:18 am
one needs to be skilled at inference to first infer the meaning and analyze the early texts for contradictions and points of controversy, if one achieves a general understanding of the universal principles one can then use this understanding and the teachings known to be true as a razor for eliminating that which is not in accord with these principles.
What happens if you apply this liberty of method to DooDoot's questioning of the water-buffalo Dhamma of SN 15.13? Is this not in fact what he has done? If not, please explain the difference and/or double standard.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
It is not a question of a double standard it is a qustion of living up to the standard.

justindesilva
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by justindesilva »

rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:25 pm
retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 am
Greetings RightViewFTW,
rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:18 am
one needs to be skilled at inference to first infer the meaning and analyze the early texts for contradictions and points of controversy, if one achieves a general understanding of the universal principles one can then use this understanding and the teachings known to be true as a razor for eliminating that which is not in accord with these principles.
What happens if you apply this liberty of method to DooDoot's questioning of the water-buffalo Dhamma of SN 15.13? Is this not in fact what he has done? If not, please explain the difference and/or double standard.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
It is not a question of a double standard it is a qustion of living up to the standard.
We here in Sri lanka are very fortunate that our main language of buddhists being Sinhala is a formulatiin of
Pali and sanskrit. Thereby any sinhala translations of tripitaka are very clear and understanble unlike english translations available for western interpreters and readers of English literacy. If we read englush translations doubtable areas can be cleared by referring to sinhala texts written by many knowlegeable buddhist priests , one of them been Ven Rerukane Chandavimala thero.
There are many pali words that cannot give a clear meaning in English.

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 »

justindesilva wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:53 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:25 pm
retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 am
Greetings RightViewFTW,


What happens if you apply this liberty of method to DooDoot's questioning of the water-buffalo Dhamma of SN 15.13? Is this not in fact what he has done? If not, please explain the difference and/or double standard.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
It is not a question of a double standard it is a qustion of living up to the standard.
We here in Sri lanka are very fortunate that our main language of buddhists being Sinhala is a formulatiin of
Pali and sanskrit. Thereby any sinhala translations of tripitaka are very clear and understanble unlike english translations available for western interpreters and readers of English literacy. If we read englush translations doubtable areas can be cleared by referring to sinhala texts written by many knowlegeable buddhist priests , one of them been Ven Rerukane Chandavimala thero.
There are many pali words that cannot give a clear meaning in English.
Yes, friend, you are very lucky. :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 »

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 am
Greetings RightViewFTW,
rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:18 am
one needs to be skilled at inference to first infer the meaning and analyze the early texts for contradictions and points of controversy, if one achieves a general understanding of the universal principles one can then use this understanding and the teachings known to be true as a razor for eliminating that which is not in accord with these principles.
What happens if you apply this liberty of method to DooDoot's questioning of the water-buffalo Dhamma of SN 15.13? Is this not in fact what he has done? If not, please explain the difference and/or double standard.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Still waiting to hear your criteria for accepting/rejecting suttas, paul.

wanna take a stab at it?

Feel free to let us know, that is, if its not an esoteric doctrine.

binocular
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?

Post by binocular »

Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:26 am
/.../It seems to me extremely lazy for an internet poster to say "Oh I don't believe the Buddha actually said that" and then quote the suttas to back up whatever they believe in the next sentence, don't you think?

Isn't this how bible preachers use the bible? Ignoring what they dislike and picking from the salad bar of scriptures to justify they own prejudices?

Whatever we don't like is now "apocrypha" and not sanctioned by god or buddha?

My question is what is the criteria for this behaviour?
The gratification of the ego.
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:01 am
Or is it based on a feeling? If we like it, its authentic?
What else do we ultimately have to go by, other than feelings?
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:07 am
I'm just not adding this to the conversation, however, because I still don't know why some users on this forum have a right to say "You are wrong and ignorant" for quoting a sutta and then quote another sutta in the same sentence followed by condencending insulting wrong speech.

It seems like arbitrary fundamentalism, to me.
Welcome to the wonderful world of religion and spirituality.
:hello:
Manopubbangama wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:38 am
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.
Now, that's a feeling!
“One man’s “magic” is another man’s engineering. “Supernatural” is a null word.”
- Robert Heinlein

Post Reply