My brain's been on overdrive. Sorry for any trouble its caused you. I do appreciate it.
Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
No, I would never ask for proof, just curious if there was some broader trend that supports your theory.daveblack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:53 pmCan I prove it like with manuscript evidence or something? No, but there aren't any widely available Critical Editions of the Suttas like there are of the New Testament with the Nestle-Aland 2Xth edition to show that "These manuscripts are missing this line" or something like that. I imagine once the state of Buddhist scholarship with regard to textual criticism is finally as advanced as New Testament textual criticism is now, we may have that evidence, because intuitively there's a problem here based on what other suttas say.
The question of interpretive framework will forever undercut any hope of structured textual criticism, and thank goodness for that. The scholars do not deserve the final say - the buck should always stop at the individual's capacity to personally verify what the suttas describe. Of course that is an entirely different topic.
Well, think about it. He just told them that delighting in the conceiving of the content of the percept means he does not understand it. Would you want to be the one fool who claps at the end of that scorcher?daveblack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:53 pmThis MN1 strikes me as employing the same kind of methods as Purim Torah. Take a teaching that is valid, like not delighting in the 4 classical elements, and extend its logic too far, i.e. quote Buddha as teaching against delighting in nibbana, and then bring in the punchline: the monks who listened to this discourse did not delight in Buddha's words.
See my response to you here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35914&p=537536#p537536daveblack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:53 pmNot saying it is a joke, but as it stands it reminds me of that kind of joke. I just have a gut feeling that due to the normal amount of repetition of always repeating the same paragraph with an X over and over and plugging different words into X, someone messed up and plugged nibbana in the X when they shouldn't have. And I doubt this is the only example of that kind of scribal mistake in the canon.
(If within the perception, matter is assumed, there is a bridge between domains that should not be (that could not actually be). That conceived matter exists as the bridge, when all that could have possibly been was the perception of a percept. "[Four mahābhutā]…will always be just below our feet." -Ñāṇavīra Thera)