lojong1 wrote:I've heard that in the vinaya, monks are told that if they forget where a discourse was given, they should say it was given at Savatthi. Where is this, and if it doesn't say why, why?
The rule if I remember correctly is actually incase a reciters memory lapses and one can not remember the location, or who it was with. it can be one of the six great cities, with a certain hiararchy placed with Savati at the top. or if it was a person, it could be a prominent lay supporter, king, bhikkhuni, bhikkhu, prominent mendicant disciple, or the Buddha himself depending on the role people played would depend on who was speaking teaching ... obviously. As these points are not as important as the Dhamma these can be altered without the meaning being changed, the truth is the truth no matter where or who speaks it.
and that is the point of the suttas, although some important information about context can be contained in the opening sequence of the texts the location and who it was between are not important, the important point is the truth and preserving the path to the truth. the Texts are a map and guide to compare the practice they are talking about with our own experience.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill