How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

James the Giant wrote:
How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?
Nichiren Buddhists strip the Buddhas' teachings right back to one single line of the Lotus Sutra where it says something like "if a person even says one word of the Lotus Sutra, they are destined to attain Buddhahood."

No Four Noble Truths, no Eight-fold Path, no precepts, no meditation, no nuthin'. Just chanting Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. (The title of the Lotus Sutra)
Okay, there is more, but it all comes down to chanting really.
I doubt that.

Often, for most traditional Buddhist schools, it is not a case of "stripping" away much at all, as in keeping some parts but discarding others.

Rather, for most traditional Buddhist schools, it is about developing a heirarchy of teachings, and establishing some as more definitive (nitartha) over others which are implicit (neyartha). Then, they would argue that placing the implicit interpretation above the explicit statements, is a gross mistake. Still, they retain the implicit, and do not abandon it, or claim it to be false, or not Dharma.

This sort of traditional Buddhist hermeneutics is very ancient. Unfortunately, I seldom see English language using Buddhists apply it, or really understand it much. Though, many will use the specific nitartha / neyartha split of their own chosen school. Unfortunately, most do not know the basis for the split, and how it is worked out by other schools.

eg. "Theravada" is usually along the lines of the theories (vada) of the Elders (thera) are to be used in interpreting and understanding the Tipitaka.
"Madhyamaka" is usually along the lines of applying the sastras of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, etc. to unpack all teachings.

In addition to the simple nitartha / neyartha split, there are others. I quite like a four-fold model that comes out of the NW in maybe about the 3rd century or so. It is quite broad, and thus slightly less rigid.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,That wouldn't make sense though in this sort of context...
Yes, well, I will retract my statement about being seen by King of Death - Mara - as being an idiom for death; however, the the attempts at figurative reading of "rebirth" language in the suttas requires far, far too much convolution of the language to be convincing, and ignoring far, far too much that is quite literal in its statements.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by tiltbillings »

James the Giant wrote:
How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?
Nichiren Buddhists strip the Buddhas' teachings right back to one single line of the Lotus Sutra where it says something like "if a person even says one word of the Lotus Sutra, they are destined to attain Buddhahood."

No Four Noble Truths, no Eight-fold Path, no precepts, no meditation, no nuthin'. Just chanting Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. (The title of the Lotus Sutra)
Okay, there is more, but it all comes down to chanting really.
For any number of reasons, one being the Lotus Sutra itself, it very hard to take that at all seriously in the context of early Buddhist history. Nichiren, a very difficult character in Buddhist history, represents a very late understanding of things within a very specific cultural milieu and within a very specific sectarian point of view that is completely foreign to what one finds within the Pali texts.
>> 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
User avatar
James the Giant
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by James the Giant »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
James the Giant wrote:
How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?
Nichiren Buddhists strip the Buddhas' teachings right back to one single line of the Lotus Sutra where it says something like "if a person even says one word of the Lotus Sutra, they are destined to attain Buddhahood."

No Four Noble Truths, no Eight-fold Path, no precepts, no meditation, no nuthin'. Just chanting Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. (The title of the Lotus Sutra)
Okay, there is more, but it all comes down to chanting really.
I doubt that.

Often, for most traditional Buddhist schools, it is not a case of "stripping" away much at all, as in keeping some parts but discarding others.

Rather, for most traditional Buddhist schools, it is about developing a heirarchy of teachings, and establishing some as more definitive (nitartha) over others which are implicit (neyartha). Then, they would argue that placing the implicit interpretation above the explicit statements, is a gross mistake. Still, they retain the implicit, and do not abandon it, or claim it to be false, or not Dharma.
Yeah thanks for correcting me, you're quite right of course. From an outsider's perspective it just looks like they have abandoned the rest of the Dhamma. I should also have limited my comments to just Soka Gakkai International too, not Nichiren Buddhism in general.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by nowheat »

TheDhamma wrote:
catmoon wrote:I know of some people who have gone all the way back to the 4NT and 8FP and rejected everything that came after. Their version of Buddhism has no rebirth, no karma, no tantra work, no prayers, rituals or statuary. Unfortunately they are kind of tactless which has resulted in them being kicked off almost every respectable Buddhist board.
Well, that would mean they really didn't understand the 4NT & 8FP. Because the 4NT & 8FP includes samma-ditthi, Right Understanding, which includes rebirth, anatta, anicca, etc. and those other things that they "rejected."
Though they (I) might turn around and say that from the perspective of one who sees the consistency of the Buddha's teaching in the 4NT and 8FP and has evidence from the suttas that the Buddha did not teach Right Understanding as including rebirth, those who believe karma and rebirth are part of the path don't really understand the 4NT and 8FP.

Sure, all of the dhamma is contained in the 4NT and the 8FP. All of the dhamma is contained in the Three Marks of Existence. That's because if you really understand any one of those things, all the rest follow from it. It's one truth, the dhamma is. Once you see it, you see it all.

Sorry if I am being tactless in baldly stating my perspective. :namaste:
User avatar
catmoon
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by catmoon »

tiltbillings wrote:
catmoon wrote:
BTW I would like to know if references to rebirth, non self and so on occur in earliest versions of the 8FP? Would that be hard to find out?
The Chapter of the Eights is considered the oldest chapter of the Suttanipata which is considered the oldest text of the Sutta Pitaka, no Noble Eightfold Path found there. You might want to start your investigation there.

As for the persons who dismiss literal rebirth, trying to turn any mention of rebirth in the suttas into some sort of figurative speech, they do not show very good scholarship, nor do they really make any sense out of the Buddha's teachings.

Yes. In one discussion someone pointed out a reference to rebirth occurring after the breakup of the body, the argument was denied, and the passage interpreted to mean quite the opposite. That's the point at which I gave up on excluding rebirth doctrine as logically just too much of a stretch. It just seems impossible to me that Buddha was not teaching literal rebirth.

Nonetheless that discussion did end up concluding the rebirth was not essential to Buddhism. People like the Soto Zen folks have apparently been getting along without it for quite some time. Strangely, Bhikku Bodhi was quoted in support of non-essentiality.
User avatar
Vardali
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:56 am

Re: Call to arms for reasoned & critical perspective on Buddhism

Post by Vardali »

catmoon wrote:...
Nonetheless that discussion did end up concluding the rebirth was not essential to Buddhism. People like the Soto Zen folks have apparently been getting along without it for quite some time. Strangely, Bhikku Bodhi was quoted in support of non-essentiality.
I am not versed enough yet in the teachings to have a definite understanding but considering that the Buddha was - as a religious source - talking in a set historical context where rebirth was culturally seen as "given" (in Hinduism), I cannot not rule out that he was speaking more in a cultural context than formulating a "technical requirement" on the path to enlightenment. At least, I have not yet found a reference or explanation that indicates it's necessity to my poor understanding.

However, as the whole rebirth discussion still confuzzles me, I am very interested to understand by what line of argument it is deemed essential (or reversely, non-essential). Would there be any link to the aforementioned discussion you could provide me with (assuming it is not the big rebirth debate, as it seems to focus on the "literalism", not on the "essentialism"). I feel I have already searched for most of the rebirth links here but had not realized that lines of arguments.

Thanks :)

:reading:
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by pegembara »

James the Giant wrote:
How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?
Nichiren Buddhists strip the Buddhas' teachings right back to one single line of the Lotus Sutra where it says something like "if a person even says one word of the Lotus Sutra, they are destined to attain Buddhahood."

No Four Noble Truths, no Eight-fold Path, no precepts, no meditation, no nuthin'. Just chanting Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. (The title of the Lotus Sutra)
Okay, there is more, but it all comes down to chanting really.

"In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

Maha-parinibbana Sutta



"In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

"Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."

Nagara Sutta: The City

Fabrications = all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas(self/nonself), opinions(rebirth/no rebirth), prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object ie. mental concepts
Last edited by pegembara on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by BlackBird »

Hi all

This article might be worth a look in, as it pertains to the topics being discussed here:

A critique of "Buddhism with out Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor - By Ven. Bhikkhu Punnadhammo
http://www.martinebatchelor.org/punnadhammo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"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
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BlackBird wrote:Hi all

This article might be worth a look in, as it pertains to the topics being discussed here:

A critique of "Buddhism with out Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor - By Ven. Bhikkhu Punnadhammo
http://www.martinebatchelor.org/punnadhammo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pretty scorching conclusion to that critique:

There is an urgent need to interpret and present these teachings to the
modern west. This "Buddhism Without Beliefs" has sorely failed to do. The
prescription of this book amounts to an abandonment of the traditional
Dharma and the transformation of Buddhism into a psychotherapy, which like
all psychotherapies, has no goal higher than "ordinary misery." This is a
Buddhism without fruition, without a Third Noble Truth.
Should such teachings prevail then they will still validate the tradition
in a backhanded way; because they will fulfill the prophecies of the
degeneration of the Dharma in this age of decline.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by tiltbillings »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Hi all

This article might be worth a look in, as it pertains to the topics being discussed here:

A critique of "Buddhism with out Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor - By Ven. Bhikkhu Punnadhammo
http://www.martinebatchelor.org/punnadhammo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pretty scorching conclusion to that critique: . . .
Maybe so; however, Batchelor has interesting and provocative things to say and is worth reading or listening to.
>> 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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by mikenz66 »

Here's a critique by Bhikkhu Bodhi for the BB fans...

http://www.buddhistethics.org/5/batch1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by pink_trike »

BlackBird wrote:Hi all

This article might be worth a look in, as it pertains to the topics being discussed here:

A critique of "Buddhism with out Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor - By Ven. Bhikkhu Punnadhammo
http://www.martinebatchelor.org/punnadhammo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm not a fan of Stephen's. I've read some very intelligent, interesting, challenging, and thoughtful critiques of Buddhism without Beliefs, but this one makes my lip curl. If Ven. Bhikkhu Punnadhammo tried some of those moves in a group process environment nobody would let him get away with it. Too slippery and subtly condescending for my taste. I'm reminded of the hyper-gentlemanly Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. who all speak from the same script nearly word for word, parroting position statements with calculated talking points that evade the real issues and points of difference, slipping in subtle exaggerations, subtle pity from an equally subtle position of purity, and innocent amazement...like snakes in butterfly clothing, with seething anger and irrationality just below the surface.

Drop all the superiority and passive-aggressive undermining and then there can be a real meeting of minds.
Last edited by pink_trike on Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by Dan74 »

It's been said already, but the Dhamma can be stripped back to the bare minimum, of course. It just won't be enough for most of us.
For some very little has sufficed.

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: How far back can you strip the Buddha's teachings?

Post by zavk »

To play devil's advocate... 'stripping back' suggests that we are harkening back to a more 'pristine', more 'authentic', more 'essential' Buddhism. But what if what we are doing in contemporary times--reading and rereading, translating and retranslating, etc, etc--is not so much a 'stripping back' but a 'giving shape to', a kind of crafting?

I just posted this in the other thread on New Age/Western Buddhism:

I mentioned a recent book called The Making of Buddhist Modernism. From the publisher website: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195183276" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A great deal of Buddhist literature and scholarly writing about Buddhism of the past 150 years reflects, and indeed constructs, a historically unique modern Buddhism, even while purporting to represent ancient tradition, timeless teaching, or the "essentials" of Buddhism. This literature, Asian as well as Western, weaves together the strands of different traditions to create a novel hybrid that brings Buddhism into alignment with many of the ideologies and sensibilities of the post-Enlightenment West.

In this book, David McMahan charts the development of this "Buddhist modernism." McMahan examines and analyzes a wide range of popular and scholarly writings produced by Buddhists around the globe. He focuses on ideological and imaginative encounters between Buddhism and modernity, for example in the realms of science, mythology, literature, art, psychology, and religious pluralism. He shows how certain themes cut across cultural and geographical contexts, and how this form of Buddhism has been created by multiple agents in a variety of times and places. His position is critical but empathetic: while he presents Buddhist modernism as a construction of numerous parties with varying interests, he does not reduce it to a mistake, a misrepresentation, or fabrication. Rather, he presents it as a complex historical process constituted by a variety of responses -- sometimes trivial, often profound -- to some of the most important concerns of the modern era.

McMahan's work demonstrates that we cannot easily 'strip back' two and half thousand years of Buddhism to uncover the most 'pristine' version. Rather, contemporary (Western) Buddhism emerges out of the interplay of various social, cultural, and historical processes--not unlike how we understand the 'self' as shaped by various aggregates. We do not 'strip back' the aggregates to discover an essence, but rather learn to relate to the aggregates in such a way that we come to see them 'as they really are' and thereby relate to them in such a way that the interplay of the aggregates gives shape to Awakening. In this regard, any attempt at 'stripping back' is always already enabled by the 'shaping' processes of culture and history that we are constituted by.
Last edited by zavk on Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
Post Reply