Ah yes, the beautiful fluffy white Cambodian seagull!
That may be a dove, but I'm no bird expert...
BlackBird: first time you've let loose since heading home. Did the Sri Lanka experience influence your opinion?
PeterB: I'll respectfully disagree. You're a good writer--"perusal and parsing of translations" serves the purposes of the argument. But doesn't strike me as totally forthright. Studying the suttas can and should be a serious venture, and it is the only way I see to understand the Buddha's intentions.
Intentions are not outcomes, of course, and I'm certainly not anti-meditation. But a system where we meditate first, attain high levels of awareness and only then turn to sutta reading as confirmation of our experiences seems to inherently problematic.
Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
This would neglect the necessary circularity. Because how to meditate if not informed by the suttas in the first place?alan wrote:But a system where we meditate first, attain high levels of awareness and only then turn to sutta reading as confirmation of our experiences seems to inherently problematic.
Kind regards
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Quite a few people do it quite successfully Tmingyur, under the guidance of their teacher. It was said that Webu Sayadaw knew very little Pali, didn't have a great knowledge of the suttas, but attained arahantship from practicing anapana.TMingyur wrote:This would neglect the necessary circularity. Because how to meditate if not informed by the suttas in the first place?alan wrote:But a system where we meditate first, attain high levels of awareness and only then turn to sutta reading as confirmation of our experiences seems to inherently problematic.
Kind regards
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
alan wrote:Ah yes, the beautiful fluffy white Cambodian seagull!
That may be a dove, but I'm no bird expert...
BlackBird: first time you've let loose since heading home. Did the Sri Lanka experience influence your opinion?
PeterB: I'll respectfully disagree. You're a good writer--"perusal and parsing of translations" serves the purposes of the argument. But doesn't strike me as totally forthright. Studying the suttas can and should be a serious venture, and it is the only way I see to understand the Buddha's intentions.
Intentions are not outcomes, of course, and I'm certainly not anti-meditation. But a system where we meditate first, attain high levels of awareness and only then turn to sutta reading as confirmation of our experiences seems to inherently problematic.
Ideally Sutta study and meditation practice will develop together and inform each other....
My view is that the unaided intellect alone will not take us to the depths of the Suttas, and Sutta discourses alone will not give Insight, in the Buddhas sense of the term.
Part of unlocking the Suttas is deep, and possibly prolonged, meditation practice/s.
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
It seems relevant here to say that the Buddha proposed the reduction of lobha, dosa, moha (in the teachers as well as the practitioners) as a method of determining who's teachings are fit to follow. Of course this not without it's own problems.. But the growth in the dhamma is perhaps necessarily messy and non-linear- simply because it is trying to 'treat' a very complex problem, which impacts on the ability to find a proper 'doctor' as well.
I agree that slipping in commentarial additions merely confuse the teachings in the suttas and is often the only way to cover up/make up for lack of personal experience.
Discourses in emptiness are all well and good. It's absence (ie 'happy happ samsara') is said to be a sign of the dhamma dying out. However it is better to be aware whether it is causing an increase or decrease in ones own mind, and engage accordingly.
With metta
Matheesha
I agree that slipping in commentarial additions merely confuse the teachings in the suttas and is often the only way to cover up/make up for lack of personal experience.
Discourses in emptiness are all well and good. It's absence (ie 'happy happ samsara') is said to be a sign of the dhamma dying out. However it is better to be aware whether it is causing an increase or decrease in ones own mind, and engage accordingly.
With metta
Matheesha
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Hi friends
I'm coming into this discussion late. Please excuse me for interrupting the flow of discussion. Reading through the responses, I think everyone has raised very good, valid arguments. But if I may pick up on this observation in the OP:
Based on my study of the historical development of modern Buddhism and observations of general trends in discussions, websites, offline conversations, etc, there are certain 'Protestant' tendencies in modern Buddhism. For a start, the widespread laicisation of Buddhism in the past two centuries--which saw the shift from monastic authority to individual inner authority and the widespread availability of texts once restricted to the 'clergy'--does mirror that of Protestantism. This is not a bad thing in itself, because it has allowed for greater participation in Buddhist teachings. Unlike in the past, laypeople are no longer restricted to 'merit-making'.
But by the same token, there may also be the risk of placing too much emphasis on the Word or Logos, such that we unwittingly seek to secure self-presence on an unchanging ground of conceptuality. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist teachings warn against any such notions. Any attempt to secure self-presence in the Word is a form of seeking a fixed 'self', a 'self' that mistakenly finds refuge in a non-existent unchanging ground of conceptuality. We see such a tendency in much of Protestant Christianity. Is this tendency present in modern Buddhism too? (I do not have a clear cut answer to this, but I think it is a question best left opened and pondered upon.)
Please note that I am NOT accusing anyone here of doing this. It seems to me that everyone here is aware of this pitfall. Nor am I saying that we should disregard the Pali Canon or trivialise the study of suttas. In fact, I have utmost respect for those who are committed to a diligent study of the Pali Canon and would like to eventually devote more time to it myself. But like I've said, I'm merely pointing to the historical and cultural conditionings framing our understanding of Buddhism, regardless of how we engage with Buddhism.
Just wanted to comment on this point. OK, back to where the discussion is moving.
I'm coming into this discussion late. Please excuse me for interrupting the flow of discussion. Reading through the responses, I think everyone has raised very good, valid arguments. But if I may pick up on this observation in the OP:
This is something worth pondering over. Regardless of whether we come from a Christian background or not, in 'Western' cultures we are living in the shadow of certain historical conditionings stemming from the developments of Protestantism. These conditionings are framing our approach to Buddhism; it is not something we can easily avoid. Conditionings are conditionings.PeterB wrote:Many of those who come to attempt to base their lives around Dhamma ( note spelling ) are one or at most two generations away from some form of protestant Christianity. At the core of which is the dictum, " By faith alone. Through Christ alone. As seen in the Bible alone." It seems to me that we see this heritage from time to time among Theravadin Buddhists..." By reason alone. Through Gautama alone, As seen in the Suttas alone." If there is any degree of truth in that observation, then I think it may well bear closer examination.
Based on my study of the historical development of modern Buddhism and observations of general trends in discussions, websites, offline conversations, etc, there are certain 'Protestant' tendencies in modern Buddhism. For a start, the widespread laicisation of Buddhism in the past two centuries--which saw the shift from monastic authority to individual inner authority and the widespread availability of texts once restricted to the 'clergy'--does mirror that of Protestantism. This is not a bad thing in itself, because it has allowed for greater participation in Buddhist teachings. Unlike in the past, laypeople are no longer restricted to 'merit-making'.
But by the same token, there may also be the risk of placing too much emphasis on the Word or Logos, such that we unwittingly seek to secure self-presence on an unchanging ground of conceptuality. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist teachings warn against any such notions. Any attempt to secure self-presence in the Word is a form of seeking a fixed 'self', a 'self' that mistakenly finds refuge in a non-existent unchanging ground of conceptuality. We see such a tendency in much of Protestant Christianity. Is this tendency present in modern Buddhism too? (I do not have a clear cut answer to this, but I think it is a question best left opened and pondered upon.)
Please note that I am NOT accusing anyone here of doing this. It seems to me that everyone here is aware of this pitfall. Nor am I saying that we should disregard the Pali Canon or trivialise the study of suttas. In fact, I have utmost respect for those who are committed to a diligent study of the Pali Canon and would like to eventually devote more time to it myself. But like I've said, I'm merely pointing to the historical and cultural conditionings framing our understanding of Buddhism, regardless of how we engage with Buddhism.
Just wanted to comment on this point. OK, back to where the discussion is moving.
With metta,
zavk
zavk
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Thank you Ed for your excellent post. It echoes some of my own thoughts on the subject.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
The Protestant Reformation arose in the specific social, cultural, religious, and historical context of Europe at the time. It was a necessary development. And while some of the fruits of the Protestant Reformation and the European Enlightenment -- such as text critical analysis, etc. -- are new to Buddhism, other ideas, such as not merely accepting the authority of verbal testimony, are embedded in the suttas themselves (even if this injunction hasn't always been appreciated). As already mentioned, the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta informs us that the onus is on each practitioner to compare what teachers say with what is presented in the canon, in order to check the veracity of these sayings and interpretations with the dhamma and vinaya.zavk wrote:Based on my study of the historical development of modern Buddhism and observations of general trends in discussions, websites, offline conversations, etc, there are certain 'Protestant' tendencies in modern Buddhism. For a start, the widespread laicisation of Buddhism in the past two centuries--which saw the shift from monastic authority to individual inner authority and the widespread availability of texts once restricted to the 'clergy'--does mirror that of Protestantism.
Of course this can be a problem. Following the gradual training will eliminate this problem if one is sufficiently committed to the practice.zavk wrote:But by the same token, there may also be the risk of placing too much emphasis on the Word or Logos, such that we unwittingly seek to secure self-presence on an unchanging ground of conceptuality. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist teachings warn against any such notions.
All the best,
Geoff
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
I think it is best to take a 'middle path' approach to all of these things, and just develop in that way. There's no need for bias in either direction (unless it is a certain aspect of the practice we individually need to focus more on).
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Hi Geoff
Thanks for contextualising my comments.
Again, I am not trivialising the Pali Canon as such, but merely pointing out the need to be historically reflexive even as we commit ourselves to upholding the Canon. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but I think it is important not to regard our modern interpretation as a kind of 'unmediated' access to what the Canon means, as if our (conventional, mundane) modes of understanding could step outside time, bypassing the filters of history to capture the understanding of the Buddha's time. We could of course, given what evidence we have, make carefully considered, well-informed interpretations of what the understanding was back then. But at the end of the day, we are still reading the canon from where we are: the present. To be clear, I am not trivialising our understanding of the Canon today but simply suggesting that we acknowledge the situated-ness of our understanding 'as it is'--a maxim of the path I'm committed to honour.
So what I'm trying to share is that acknowledging the situated-ness and historically-contingent nature of understanding does not make our commitment to the Dhamma or the wisdom which we now read in the Canon any less 'valid' or 'effective'. In fact, it would keep us on our toes, guard against complacency, and remind us not to take things for granted.
Thanks again for your post, it has helped to clarify my thinking. Much appreciated.
Thanks for contextualising my comments.
Yes, in the same way, modern Buddhism arose in the specific social, cultural, religious, and historical context of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries. Some of the wider conditions influencing the development of modern Buddhism were the 'Victorian crisis of faith', the tensions between the colonial rulers and the people of Asian Buddhist cultures, the conflicting interests and authorities of Western scholars of Buddhism and indigenous monastics, and the need for both 'Eastern' and 'Western' cultures to come to grips with the challenges of modernity. These conditions have shaped the ways in which Buddhism is understood both in the West and in traditional Buddhist societies--the renewed emphasis on the Pali Canon was prompted by such conditions.Ñāṇa wrote:The Protestant Reformation arose in the specific social, cultural, religious, and historical context of Europe at the time. It was a necessary development. And while some of the fruits of the Protestant Reformation and the European Enlightenment -- such as text critical analysis, etc. -- are new to Buddhism...
Again, I am not trivialising the Pali Canon as such, but merely pointing out the need to be historically reflexive even as we commit ourselves to upholding the Canon. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but I think it is important not to regard our modern interpretation as a kind of 'unmediated' access to what the Canon means, as if our (conventional, mundane) modes of understanding could step outside time, bypassing the filters of history to capture the understanding of the Buddha's time. We could of course, given what evidence we have, make carefully considered, well-informed interpretations of what the understanding was back then. But at the end of the day, we are still reading the canon from where we are: the present. To be clear, I am not trivialising our understanding of the Canon today but simply suggesting that we acknowledge the situated-ness of our understanding 'as it is'--a maxim of the path I'm committed to honour.
So what I'm trying to share is that acknowledging the situated-ness and historically-contingent nature of understanding does not make our commitment to the Dhamma or the wisdom which we now read in the Canon any less 'valid' or 'effective'. In fact, it would keep us on our toes, guard against complacency, and remind us not to take things for granted.
We can see again the risk of placing too much emphasis on the Word/Logos if the bit I highlighted is read narrowly and taken out of the wider context of the path. BUT, I fully agree with you that this need not be the case, that the path itself has certain 'failsafe mechanisms' to prevent this. My understanding is--and I think this is what you and others are pointing to as well--the referencing of the suttas should always be positioned within a wider matrix of practices which includes consultations with the wise, companionship with admirable friends, the performance of dana, and bhavana in its various forms. To my understanding, when the study of the canon is situated within this matrix of practice (which is always historically specific) the truths of Buddhism are demonstrated not so much in texts but in the enactment of those truths.Ñāṇa wrote:... other ideas, such as not merely accepting the authority of verbal testimony, are embedded in the suttas themselves (even if this injunction hasn't always been appreciated). As already mentioned, the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta informs us that the onus is on each practitioner to compare what teachers say with what is presented in the canon, in order to check the veracity of these sayings and interpretations with the dhamma and vinaya.
Thanks again for your post, it has helped to clarify my thinking. Much appreciated.
With metta,
zavk
zavk
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:10 pm
- Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
I think the general view if it's not in the pali canon then it's not true point of view Theravada has is very limiting. I believe in Tara but I'm a Theravada buddhist. Just because it's not written doesn't mean it's not true
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Thanks zavk for your insightful posts which express extremely well the way I see many of these issues surrounding the the interpretation and implementation of the Dhamma.
Mike
Mike
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
Yes, I agree. And I'd add that there is no possibility of understanding the Canon without understanding (to some degree at least) the layers of commentarial development which have arisen subsequently. In my case, I accepted the modern treatises of Ven. Mahāsi Sayādaw and the Visuddhimagga as authoritative for over ten years. Then I became interested in the suttas and began to recognize some of the differences in terminology and path structure, etc., between what the suttas were presenting and what the Visuddhimagga and modern Burmese teachers were presenting. Then over the course of the past decade I've been mainly interested in the suttas and the developments found in the Abhidhammapiṭaka and the Paṭisambhidāmagga, and so on. Thus, it's been a 20+ year process of slowly peeling back layers of doctrinal development.zavk wrote:Again, I am not trivialising the Pali Canon as such, but merely pointing out the need to be historically reflexive even as we commit ourselves to upholding the Canon. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but I think it is important not to regard our modern interpretation as a kind of 'unmediated' access to what the Canon means, as if our (conventional, mundane) modes of understanding could step outside time, bypassing the filters of history to capture the understanding of the Buddha's time. We could of course, given what evidence we have, make carefully considered, well-informed interpretations of what the understanding was back then. But at the end of the day, we are still reading the canon from where we are: the present. To be clear, I am not trivialising our understanding of the Canon today but simply suggesting that we acknowledge the situated-ness of our understanding 'as it is'--a maxim of the path I'm committed to honour.
Indeed. Practice is essential. Personally, I consider myself extremely fortunate to be able to devote all of my time and energy to practice (with a modicum of study included).zavk wrote:My understanding is--and I think this is what you and others are pointing to as well--the referencing of the suttas should always be positioned within a wider matrix of practices which includes consultations with the wise, companionship with admirable friends, the performance of dana, and bhavana in its various forms. To my understanding, when the study of the canon is situated within this matrix of practice (which is always historically specific) the truths of Buddhism are demonstrated not so much in texts but in the enactment of those truths.
All the best,
Geoff
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
I had actually become convinced that the traditional method was barking up the wrong tree some time before I departed. My time over there helped solidify my conviction. In any case, a further discussion here would seem to serve little purpose. My only hope is that the seeds of doubt have been sowed that may bear fruit in critical thought and evaluation.alan wrote: BlackBird: first time you've let loose since heading home. Did the Sri Lanka experience influence your opinion?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Over confidence in our understanding of Suttas
It would be interesting if you were to expand a little Jack...