Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
The three fetters are a tandem –doubt itself being one of them - that are overcome with the arising of the dibbacakkhu. Any understanding of them – and particularly that of sakkayaditthi – based on some free-floating belief of what might have been going on in an Indian Brahmin’s head three thousand years ago is suspect, if not absurd. Belief entails doubt. An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.
Last edited by pulga on Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.pulga wrote:The three fetters are a tandem –doubt itself being one of them - that are overcome with the arising of the dibbacakkhu. Any understanding of them – and particularly that of sakkayaditthi – based on some free-floating belief of what was going on in an Indian Brahmin’s head three thousand years ago is suspect, if not absurd. Belief entails doubt. An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.tiltbillings wrote:Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
A concrete example, please.pulga wrote:I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.tiltbillings wrote:Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
Always?pulga wrote:Historical reasoning is always fallible: it's inherently so. Now how could a belief in what is fallible yield wisdom?
May you grow fat with unbounded friendliness.
Daniel
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
I agree the Dhamma is verifiable here and now, but why must it? And I disagree it must be concrete, and totally disagree it must be apophatic.pulga wrote:An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.
D
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
My interpretation of apophasis is letting something be seen from itself, as it is in itself. This is what I think Ñanavira is alluding to when he writes in Letter 81:
"Now all conceptual thinking is abstract; that is to say, the thought or concept is entirely divorced from reality, it is removed from existence and is (in Kierkegaard's phrase) sub specie aeterni. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, thinks the object while the object is present, and this, in the strict sense of the words, is reflexion or mindfulness. One is mindful of what one is doing, of what one is seeing, while one is actually doing (or seeing) it. This, naturally, is very much more difficult than abstract thinking; but it has a very obvious advantage: if one is thinking (or being mindful) of something while it is actually present, no mistake is possible, and one is directly in touch with reality; but in abstract thinking there is every chance of a mistake, since, as I pointed out above, the concepts with which we think are composite affairs, built up of an arbitrary lot of individual experiences (books, conversations, past observations, and so on)."
"Now all conceptual thinking is abstract; that is to say, the thought or concept is entirely divorced from reality, it is removed from existence and is (in Kierkegaard's phrase) sub specie aeterni. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, thinks the object while the object is present, and this, in the strict sense of the words, is reflexion or mindfulness. One is mindful of what one is doing, of what one is seeing, while one is actually doing (or seeing) it. This, naturally, is very much more difficult than abstract thinking; but it has a very obvious advantage: if one is thinking (or being mindful) of something while it is actually present, no mistake is possible, and one is directly in touch with reality; but in abstract thinking there is every chance of a mistake, since, as I pointed out above, the concepts with which we think are composite affairs, built up of an arbitrary lot of individual experiences (books, conversations, past observations, and so on)."
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Re: Brahminizing & Sanskritizing Buddhism & sīlabbata-parāmāsa
danieLion wrote:Tilt! Always glad to interact with you.tiltbillings wrote:Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating.danieLion wrote: In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).
Sure, I'll get some citations prepared if you'll permit me some time to consult my collection.
D
Dear Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:A concrete example, please.pulga wrote:I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.tiltbillings wrote:Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.
I've changed my mind. My OP was inspired by Peacock's contention that brahminism crept back into Buddhism. But I now find Peacock's claim either disingenuous or misguided because the "brhaministic element" was there all along. Peacock seems to want it to be a conspiracy or at least behind-the-scenes-ish, but it was more of a cultural process--as far as I can tell so far. The Buddha clearly and boldly rejected much of brahminism, but he also appropriated and revised parts of it too.
good-will
Daniel