Hi!
There are several people on the internet that outright reject parts of the tipitika, including large swathes of the suttas that speak about rebirth, and the entire Abhidhamma.
What are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
Thanks!
Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Imagine if PhDs had to be issued on such claims.
What appears to be rejected is teachings such as:
What appears to be rejected is teachings such as:
What appears to be rejected is teachings such as:Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in reference to this that it was said.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Greetings Manopubbangama,
I am inclined to believe it is good practice to specify the source of a particular quotation, and then to allow the reader to determine for themselves how much credence they wish to apply to that particular source.
Such an approach respects the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others.
Metta,
Paul.
I am inclined to believe it is good practice to specify the source of a particular quotation, and then to allow the reader to determine for themselves how much credence they wish to apply to that particular source.
Such an approach respects the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
This sounds a bit vague and can be used to justify anything we want to believe at any given moment. I'm not talking about PhD's who do peer-reviews on their work, I'm talking about run-of-the-mill internet posters.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:22 am Imagine if PhDs had to be issued on such claims.
What is rejected is teachings such as:Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in reference to this that it was said.
It seems to me extremely lazy for an internet poster to say "Oh I don't believe the Buddha actually said that" and then quote the suttas to back up whatever they believe in the next sentence, don't you think?
Isn't this how bible preachers use the bible? Ignoring what they dislike and picking from the salad bar of scriptures to justify they own prejudices?
Whatever we don't like is now "apocrypha" and not sanctioned by god or buddha?
My question is what is the criteria for this behaviour?
I'm asking for logical consistency (at the very least).
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
So then how can we claim that the Buddha said something, use it to justify our own opinions, and then in the same conversation say "Oh that disagrees with my opinions, I don't believe it was really said by the Buddha?"retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:23 am Greetings Manopubbangama,
I am inclined to believe it is good practice to specify the source of a particular quotation, and then to allow the reader to determine for themselves how much credence they wish to apply to that particular source.
Such an approach respects the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others.
Metta,
Paul.
Don't you think that its an anti-intellectual devise to make the suttas conform to our own preconceived prejudices?
Regarding the source of the suttas, what is your opinion of the source of the suttas?
Because your response seems vague enough to regard the suttas as only acceptable when it can be interpreted in a way that conforms to our own values.
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
I am personally not aware of much rejection of "rebirth". However, I am aware of different interpretations of "birth" ("jati"), even though all interpretations share in common the view that certain actions lead to certain pleasant or painful results.
I trust we will find entire monastic traditions that reject Abhidhamma. Since the refuge is Buddha, Buddha's Dhamma & Buddha's Sangha, its difficult to discern how later-day Abhidhamma fits into such a refuge. This said, most Buddhists happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake.
It doesn't matter how many suttas quotes are made. The faith-zealots will simply ignore them. I think when people have cultural backgrounds in Judeo-Christianity then often adjusting to the multi-faceted nature of Buddhism becomes quite difficult. Monotheism or one-doctrine becomes difficult to overcome.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:16 amWhat are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
ManoPG. I think you should begin my actually providing us with the Pali word from the Tripitaka translated as "rebirth". Thanks
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
None of this answers my question, it just uses ad-hominem insults to attack people who are asking for verification as "faith-zealots."DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:31 amI am personally not aware of much rejection of "rebirth". However, I am aware of different interpretations of "birth" ("jati"), even though all interpretations share in common the view that certain actions lead to certain pleasant or painful results.
I trust we will find entire monastic traditions that reject Abhidhamma. Since the refuge is Buddha, Buddha's Dhamma & Buddha's Sangha, its difficult to discern how later-day Abhidhamma fits into such a refuge. This said, most Buddhists happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake.
It doesn't matter how many suttas quotes are made. The faith-zealots will simply ignore them. I think when people have cultural backgrounds in Judeo-Christianity then often adjusting to the multi-faceted nature of Buddhism becomes quite difficult. Monotheism or one-doctrine becomes difficult to overcome.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:16 amWhat are the criteria that we can quote suttas to back up our own feelings here while also rejecting the authenticity of other parts of the Tipitika?
I want to know the criteria for rejecting the Tipitika willy-nilly whenever it doesn't fit into our preconcieved world view?
Is calling people faith-zealots even right-speech?
What is the diference between a faith-zealot and a faith-follower?
Here we can see an internet poster disregarding suttas that disagree with his worldview:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33512&start=120#p500092
DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:30 amFirstly, there is zero evidence the Buddha ever spoke this sutta. Thus referring to the Buddha is not relevant.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:25 amYou are "answering" my question by asking me another question......
I want to know precisely why the Buddha said that we humans were once water buffaloes?
Secondly, it is said the Buddha was the perfect teacher. This is the Dhamma Refuge. If this teaching in SN 15.13 does not bring the result found in the sutta then, to me, it is unlikely the Buddha ever spoke it.
In this case, the idea of rebirth is rejected because the suttas have too much rebirth in them.
Why are people that ask for an explanation derided as "faith-zealots"?
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Greetings Manopubbangama,
Metta,
Paul.
I don't quite know which "we" that would be, but in accordance with what I said about respecting the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others, I would leave it to the individual to explain their reasoning.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 am So then how can we claim that the Buddha said something use it to justify our own opinions, and then in the same conversation say "Oh that disagrees with my opinions, I don't believe it was really said by the Buddha?"
I repeat, "in accordance with what I said about respecting the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others, I would leave it to the individual to explain their reasoning."Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 am Don't you think that its an anti-intellectual devise to make the suttas conform to our own preconceived prejudices?
The best efforts of the Buddhasasana to preserve the Buddha's teaching. I accept that textual analysis (such as that done by ven. Sujato and others) might uncover certain things which might draw attention to corruptions or context that might be otherwise overlooked by the 21st century reader, but for all intents and purposes, I'm happy to take the Sutta Pitaka as is... with the exception of those parts of the Sutta Pitaka which are just early commentary. I regard those instead as early commentary.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 am Regarding the source of the suttas, what is your opinion of the source of the suttas?
I repeat, "in accordance with what I said about respecting the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others, I would leave it to the individual to explain their reasoning." It's not for me to speak for others, or what they do - they may account for themselves.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 am Because your response seems vague enough to regard the suttas as only acceptable when it can be interpreted in a way that conforms to our own values.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Thanks ManoPG but I think it is not productive pursuing such matters in an academic or scholarly way when some parties can only post worldly trivial remarks. Good luck friend. Btw, there is a thread called the 'Great Rebirth Debate' that is maybe 10 years old. Possibly start there. Best wishes.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:35 amI want to know the criteria for rejecting the Tipitika willy-nilly whenever it doesn't fit into our preconcieved world view?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
So Paul, is it acceptable to you, as an individual, that I ask you to explain your reasoning for rejecting the entire Abhidhamma?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:37 am Greetings Manopubbangama,
I don't quite know which "we" that would be, but in accordance with what I said about respecting the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others, I would leave it to the individual to explain their reasoning.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 am So then how can we claim that the Buddha said something use it to justify our own opinions, and then in the same conversation say "Oh that disagrees with my opinions, I don't believe it was really said by the Buddha?"
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
ManopubbangamaManopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:26 amThis sounds a bit vague ...DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:22 am What is rejected is teachings such as:Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in reference to this that it was said.
The above is the official Dhamma Refuge. If its vague then I imagine there is no Buddhist refuge. I imagine one cannot even claim to be a Buddhist if they hold the Dhamma refuge to be vague
Its similar to say the US Constitution. If its vague to you, how can you claim to be "American"?
Best wishes.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Friend, this post is another ad-hominum attack.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:39 amThanks ManoPG but I think it is not productive pursuing such matters in an academic or scholarly way when some parties can only post worldly trivial remarks. Good luck friend. Btw, there is a thread called the 'Great Rebirth Debate' that is maybe 10 years old. Possibly start there. Best wishes.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:35 amI want to know the criteria for rejecting the Tipitika willy-nilly whenever it doesn't fit into our preconcieved world view?
I would think that someone that is scholarly could at least defend their views and attacks on others' view with more than just saying "if it feels good to me its a good sutta, and the Buddha said it."
What is the criteria you use for rejecting so much of the suttas?
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
ManopubbangamaManopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:43 amSo Paul, is it acceptable to you, as an individual, that I ask you to explain your reasoning for rejecting the entire Abhidhamma?
Have you actually read the whole of the Abhidhamma, let alone a substantial part of it? If not, why are you promoting or defending something you haven't comprehensively read? Its kind of similar to being an Anti-Semitic Slav promoting Mein Kampf without reading it; not realising Mein Kampf is as much Anti-Slav as it is Anti-Semitic.
In short, are you equipped to conduct a reasoned rational scholarly discussion, where you can provide quotes from the Adhidhamma to offer us?
Thank you
Last edited by DooDoot on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
Greetings,
To me, that timespan alone makes it a Theravada teaching, in contrast to being the word of the Buddha, which is what I am really interested in... but as one of the "many Buddhists" referred to by DooDoot above, I "happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake."
Metta,
Paul.
Primarily that it wasn't conceived of until the Third Council, approximately three centuries after the Buddha's passing. There is more detail about its origins in The Great Abhidhamma Authenticity Debate if you're genuinely interested.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:43 am So Paul, is it acceptable to you, as an individual, that I ask you to explain your reasoning for rejecting the entire Abhidhamma?
To me, that timespan alone makes it a Theravada teaching, in contrast to being the word of the Buddha, which is what I am really interested in... but as one of the "many Buddhists" referred to by DooDoot above, I "happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake."
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: Criteria for rejecting Tipitika?
I'm glad you allow DooDoot to speak for you, Paul, this makes it easier for me to track opinions. 1 is easier to remember than 2.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:49 am Greetings,
Primary that it wasn't conceived of until the Third Council, approximately three centuries after the Buddha's passing. There is more detail about its origins in The Great Abhidhamma Authenticity Debate if you're genuinely interested.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:43 am So Paul, is it acceptable to you, as an individual, that I ask you to explain your reasoning for rejecting the entire Abhidhamma?
To me, that timespan alone makes it a Theravada teaching, in contrast to being the word of the Buddha, which is what I am really interested in... but as one of the "many Buddhists" referred to by DooDoot above, I "happily tolerate Abhidhamma and don't lobby to burn Abhidhammists at a burning stake."
Metta,
Paul.
Also thanks for tolerating the Abhidhammists and not burning them at the stake. I'm sure they are happy to not be burned at the stake.
So are you saying that codification at the 1st Buddhist council is your criteria for "if the Buddha said it?" The 2nd council?
I still don't know, I guess the 3rd council is too late for verifiable authenticity?
The only criteria I have seen so far is that DooDoot said that if it feels right to him at the moment, than the Buddha said it.
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:58 am, edited 2 times in total.