Path to Buddhahood

[tiltbillings]

I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

Your secular prejudices are obvious.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[Nyana]

Hello Nana

It's hard to believe that I'm reading the Nana who wrote "The jhanas acording to the pali Nikayas". I don't say this as a provocation, just as an unwanted disapointment.

I relied on the Peṭakopadesa, Nettippakaraṇa, Paṭisambhidāmagga, and Vimuttimagga when writing that.

At any rate, the assumptions of Western secularism are also open to skeptical criticism.

[tiltbillings]

Hello Nana

It's hard to believe that I'm reading the Nana who wrote "The jhanas acording to the pali Nikayas". I don't say this as a provocation, just as an unwanted disapointment.

I relied on the Peṭakopadesa, Nettippakaraṇa, Paṭisambhidāmagga, and Vimuttimagga when writing that.

At any rate, the assumptions of Western secularism are also open to skeptical criticism.

Please define what you mean by "Western secularism."

[daverupa]

Please include a list of pertinent assumptions.

[Nyana]

The important thing is: Rather, inquire into his knowledge of that which is to be practised by us.

Again, this thread pertains to the practice of the perfections in order to attain unsurpassable perfect awakening (anuttarāsammāsambodhi).

It started out that way, but it was worth a mention that the liberation the Buddha attained is no different from that attained by the arahants. I would have left it that, except you seemed to want to contest that, at length.

Bodhi, nibbāna, and vimutti do not have identical meanings.

[Nyana]

Please define what you mean by "Western secularism."

Please include a list of pertinent assumptions.

Secular Western historical and text-critical approaches that attempt to stratify the development of Buddhist ideas and the extant texts of the Pāli Tipiṭaka into different historical periods (and often make other judgments on this basis as well). E.g.:

Where that sort of thing starts to take place is in the post-death of Buddha literature among the various schools of Buddhism that were popping up, where we start getting biographies (hagiographies) of the Buddha, a valorization of the Buddha that starts separating him from the arahant in terms of status in ways not found in the suttas. It is out of that that the idea of a bodhisatta path emerges, not out the direct teachings of the Buddha.

Proposing relativism as a justification for marginalizing or dismissing traditional Buddhist beliefs. E.g.:

And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

Dismissing Pāli exegetical texts as later sectarian interpretations. E.g.:

No need for later sectarian interpretations.

[tiltbillings]

So, Buddhists are to reject any sort of Western scholarship that does not fall into a line with a literal reading of Buddhist mythos? We are to take Buddhist cosmology as being literally true, rejecting any Western science that suggests otherwise? Buddhist mythic histories are always literally true, and any history derived from Western scholarly methodology is always false?

So, you are not to answer the questions raised here?:

• I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

[tiltbillings]

Bodhi, nibbāna, and vimutti do not have identical meanings.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

[daverupa]

Secular Western historical and text-critical approaches that [1] attempt to stratify the development of Buddhist ideas and the extant texts of the Pāli Tipiṭaka into different historical periods (and often make other judgments on this basis as well).

Proposing relativism as a [2] justification for marginalizing or dismissing traditional Buddhist beliefs.

[3] Dismissing Pāli exegetical texts as later sectarian interpretations.

This is great, simple and clear.

The bolded portions are problematic...

[1] A stratification clearly obtains. Conclusions will vary.

I suggest that there is ample evidence that the earlier Buddhist communities did not give the same sort of emphasis to certain topics as some later Buddhist communities (wheel-turning monarchs, bodhisatta birth narratives and previous lives), and that in some cases later communities take up as topical certain subjects which must be gleaned from rather tight spaces in the earlier texts (bodhisatta path, future and past buddhas).

I am inspired by Kierkegaard, via Nanavira:

In general, all that is needed to make the question simple and easy is the exercise of a certain dietetic circumspection, the renunciation of every learned interpolation or subordinate consideration, which in a trice might degenerate into a century-long parenthesis.

Another way of putting this might be to focus on what is sandiṭṭhiko, etc.

[2] Such relativism is apparent. Conclusions will vary.

In my opinion, nothing clearly distinguishes, say, the Norse pantheon & cosmology from Buddhist ones. On this level alone, the Buddhist religion is one among many.

[3] These exegetical texts are factually later. Conclusions will vary.

I thought it was apparent that the historical accident which sees Theravada virtually alone on the field of extant early schools does not thereby distinguish its doctrines as true in toto.

The suppression of critical thought in favor of scholastic dogmatism is not justified.

You have also made reference to an abiding oral component, transmitted alongside the recitations. Now, I think the oral tradition meant that the inherent performance of any Buddhist text was a recitation interspersed with commentary, and that the Nikayas are basically preaching primers comprised of early and late components, if I may be so simplistic. In any event, there is no prima facie reason to identify any later scholastic material as faithfully replicating this early oral performance material.

[Nyana]

So, Buddhists are to reject any sort of Western scholarship that does not fall into a line with a literal reading of Buddhist mythos? We are to take Buddhist cosmology as being literally true, rejecting any Western science that suggests otherwise? Buddhist mythic histories are always literally true, and any history derived from Western scholarly methodology is always false?

I would suggest that it's a question of balance and keeping in mind that current Western academic trends in Buddhist Studies are speculative and open to criticism. For example, you might remember a thread on Websangha where Ven. Dhammanando offered some strong criticisms of Ven. Analayo's historical analysis of the development of the Abhidhamma. Those criticisms are often missing on this forum.

So, you are not to answer the questions raised here?:

• I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

The question relevant to this thread is not just liberation, but the aspiration for and attainment of Buddhahood.

Bodhi, nibbāna, and vimutti do not have identical meanings.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

Epistemologically, bodhi refers to types of knowledge, nibbāna refers to an object of knowledge, and vimutti is the soteriological result of realizing that knowledge.

[tiltbillings]

• I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

The question relevant to this thread is not just liberation, but the aspiration for and attainment of Buddhahood.

In other words, you are going to dodge these questions, again. Maybe if I repost them to you in a new thread, you will answer them? They are, after all, issues you brought up.

Bodhi, nibbāna, and vimutti do not have identical meanings.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

Epistemologically, bodhi refers to types of knowledge, nibbāna refers to an object of knowledge, and vimutti is the soteriological result of realizing that knowledge.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

[tiltbillings]

So, Buddhists are to reject any sort of Western scholarship that does not fall into a line with a literal reading of Buddhist mythos? We are to take Buddhist cosmology as being literally true, rejecting any Western science that suggests otherwise? Buddhist mythic histories are always literally true, and any history derived from Western scholarly methodology is always false?

I would suggest that it's a question of balance and keeping in mind that current Western academic trends in Buddhist Studies are speculative and open to criticism.

You throw around this word "speculative." I don't think it means what you think it means. Or you are misusing it. Anyway, you really have not answered my questions.

[Nyana]

This is great, simple and clear.

The bolded portions are problematic...

[1] A stratification clearly obtains. Conclusions will vary.

I suggest that there is ample evidence that the earlier Buddhist communities did not give the same sort of emphasis to certain topics as some later Buddhist communities (wheel-turning monarchs, bodhisatta birth narratives and previous lives), and that in some cases later communities take up as topical certain subjects which must be gleaned from rather tight spaces in the earlier texts (bodhisatta path, future and past buddhas).

I am inspired by Kierkegaard, via Nanavira:

In general, all that is needed to make the question simple and easy is the exercise of a certain dietetic circumspection, the renunciation of every learned interpolation or subordinate consideration, which in a trice might degenerate into a century-long parenthesis.

Another way of putting this might be to focus on what is sandiṭṭhiko, etc.

[2] Such relativism is apparent. Conclusions will vary.

In my opinion, nothing clearly distinguishes, say, the Norse pantheon & cosmology from Buddhist ones. On this level alone, the Buddhist religion is one among many.

[3] These exegetical texts are factually later. Conclusions will vary.

I thought it was apparent that the historical accident which sees Theravada virtually alone on the field of extant early schools does not thereby distinguish its doctrines as true in toto.

The suppression of critical thought in favor of scholastic dogmatism is not justified.

Your acknowledgement of "Conclusions will vary," is an important point. I agree that "The suppression of critical thought in favor of scholastic dogmatism is not justified." However, academic trends can harden into inflexible dogmas as well. The epoché of (Pyrrhonian) skepticism is an open, flexible mind.

You have also made reference to an abiding oral component, transmitted alongside the recitations. Now, I think the oral tradition meant that the inherent performance of any Buddhist text was a recitation interspersed with commentary, and that the Nikayas are basically preaching primers comprised of early and late components, if I may be so simplistic. In any event, there is no prima facie reason to identify any later scholastic material as faithfully replicating this early oral performance material.

Well, this is also speculative, but it's possible that there were different teaching styles used by different community leaders and it's also possible that oral commentary (either given to a group or individually) was less systematic and more open to unique, individual interpretations than what we find in the formal versions of the highly systematic exegetical texts.

[Nyana]

I would suggest that it's a question of balance and keeping in mind that current Western academic trends in Buddhist Studies are speculative and open to criticism.

You throw around this word "speculative." I don't think it means what you think it means. Or you are misusing it. Anyway, you really have not answered my questions.

Speculative:

1. Of, characterized by, or based upon contemplative speculation. See Synonyms at theoretical.
2.a. Given to conjecture or speculation.

In other words, you are going to dodge these questions, again. Maybe if I repost them to you in a new thread, you will answer them? They are, after all, issues you brought up.

Your penchant for phrasing questions that imply extreme all-or-nothing conclusions inhibits meaningful discussion.

Epistemologically, bodhi refers to types of knowledge, nibbāna refers to an object of knowledge, and vimutti is the soteriological result of realizing that knowledge.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

You're the one who's throwing around Buddhist terms willy-nilly in support of your thesis that the suttas don't require reference to systematic commentary.

[tiltbillings]

I would suggest that it's a question of balance and keeping in mind that current Western academic trends in Buddhist Studies are speculative and open to criticism.

You throw around this word "speculative." I don't think it means what you think it means. Or you are misusing it. Anyway, you really have not answered my questions.

Speculative:

1. Of, characterized by, or based upon contemplative speculation. See Synonyms at theoretical.
2.a. Given to conjecture or speculation.

But you have not shown that speculation (in its pejorative sense) is what good Western scholars do. You have not shown that I do it. You accuse me of it repeatedly, but you have offered no actual demonstration that I do it.

In other words, you are going to dodge these questions, again. Maybe if I repost them to you in a new thread, you will answer them? They are, after all, issues you brought up.

Your penchant for phrasing questions that imply extreme all-or-nothing conclusions inhibits meaningful discussion.

Again, another dodge. You continual accusation of my supposed "speculation" is quite extreme, particularly given your refusal to actual back up the accusation with a carefully crafted argument. So, how about answering the questions in the paragraph in question, if would please.

Epistemologically, bodhi refers to types of knowledge, nibbāna refers to an object of knowledge, and vimutti is the soteriological result of realizing that knowledge.

Different ways of talking about the same thing.

You're the one who's throwing around Buddhist terms willy-nilly in support of your thesis that the suttas don't require reference to systematic commentary.

No willy, nor any nilly. I have shown how the terms are used, which is what gives them meaning, in the suttas. Now, I am certainly open to discussion on this. So, are you telling us that the suttas do not use the words bodhi and nibbana in particular ways that we can directly look at?