Refuge is taken in the not-good Dhamma

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Leaving "Theravada" aside, for the time being...

The Suttas are pre-sectarian. The Suttas are Good Dhamma.

In fact, I would say any Dhamma which is adequate to enable one hearing it to achieve stream-entry constitutes Good Dhamma.

If the OP believes the above sources are so corrupted that stream-entry is impossible, then I guess that's one position that a person could take. I happen to be far less pessimistic in that regard.

When I "take refuge" in the Dhamma, I am taking refuge in the Dhamma, as expounded in the Sutta Pitaka (minus any early commentaries that were smuggled into KN). I believe it is good.



Metta,
Paul.

[Germann]

The Suttas are pre-sectarian. The Suttas are Good Dhamma.

Suttas exist today. That is, Buddha was mistaken in limiting the life of the Dhamma to 500 years.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Germann,

Suttas exist today. That is, Buddha was mistaken in limiting the life of the Dhamma to 500 years.

Sutta source or it didn't happen.



Metta,
Paul.

[Germann]

Sutta source or it didn't happen.

Sutta source - Bhikkhu Bodhi "The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya." 2012 - p. 1192.

[DNS]

Refuge is taken in the not-good Dhamma. According to Theravada, the good Dhamma lasted only five hundred years.

According to the Commentaries, since extra rules were added for bhikkhunis the Dhamma Dispensation would last much longer, at least 5,000 years. So there's still another 2400 to 2500 years to go.

5000 years is unreliable, because Sutta claims 500 years.

Your issue is with Theravada. But according to Theravada, the Commentaries are included.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Germann,

Sutta source - Bhikkhu Bodhi "The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya." 2012 - p. 1192.

Can you please share the accompanying footnote too?

Thank you.

Metta,
Paul.

[Garrib]

Even if you assume we are not in the age of the "good Dhamma", and even if you conclude that this means attainment is impossible (I do not believe this by the way), wouldn't the quality of future rebirths give sufficient cause to practice as best as you possibly can? In other words, there is still no good reason to abandon the remnants of Dhamma you have, or even to retreat one inch - ultimately, you need to get beyond this dilemma.

[sunnat]

There is a conflation of The Dhamma and text knowing. IMO they are not the same. IOW IMO the Buddha talked about the teaching in action or practice. It is correct that in 500 years it had pretty much disappeared from India. We are now experiencing a revival sourced from a few places where it has been maintained in the interim.

[Bundokji]

Is the notion "the good Dhamma will last 500 years only" belongs to the good dhamma?

If it does, then the notion "the good dhamma will last 500 years only" would be wrong.

If it does not, then the notion "the good dhamma will last 500 years only" would also be wrong.



Can anyone see the absurdity of quoting a fragment of a bigger body of information to debunk/question the validity of the whole body of information?

[robertk]

As DNS already pointed out
the Buddha said that because of creating the Bhikkhuni Sangha this sasana would last only five hundred years. But because of his adding the eight weighty rules the commentaries explain it would last 5000 years.
Other commentaries say that the rehearsal of the texts at the first council also made it possible to last 5000 years.

[Sam Vara]

Is the notion "the good Dhamma will last 500 years only" belongs to the good dhamma?

If it does, then the notion "the good dhamma will last 500 years only" would be wrong.

If it does not, then the notion "the good dhamma will last 500 years only" would also be wrong.



Can anyone see the absurdity of quoting a fragment of a bigger body of information to debunk/question the validity of the whole body of information?

As I said above, an absolute reliance on scripture is logically incoherent, as it undercuts itself. One always needs a reason from outside scripture in order to justify that reliance.

[Germann]

According to the Commentaries, since extra rules were added for bhikkhunis the Dhamma Dispensation would last much longer, at least 5,000 years. So there's still another 2400 to 2500 years to go.

5000 years is unreliable, because Sutta claims 500 years.

Your issue is with Theravada. But according to Theravada, the Commentaries are included.

The Commentaries - Atthakatha - in case of discrepancies return to the text of the Sutta.

"For it is individual opinion that is certainly weakest of all; the view of the teachers is firmer, but is also should fit with the principles of Sutta; when it fits and agrees with this it should be accepted, otherwise it should not; the principles of Sutta are firmer than the view of the teachers." (Samantapasadika Atthakatha I: 231)

[Germann]

Greetings Germann,

Sutta source - Bhikkhu Bodhi "The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya." 2012 - p. 1192.

Can you please share the accompanying footnote too?

https://www.amazon.com/Numerical-Discou ... 1614290407

[Germann]

There is a conflation of The Dhamma and text knowing. IMO they are not the same. IOW IMO the Buddha talked about the teaching in action or practice. It is correct that in 500 years it had pretty much disappeared from India. We are now experiencing a revival sourced from a few places where it has been maintained in the interim.

Helena Blavatsky taught about the secret brotherhood of the guardians of knowledge. Her collaborator Henry Steel Olcott created the popular Sri Lankan Buddhist flag.

[DNS]

The Commentaries - Atthakatha - in case of discrepancies return to the text of the Sutta.

"For it is individual opinion that is certainly weakest of all; the view of the teachers is firmer, but is also should fit with the principles of Sutta; when it fits and agrees with this it should be accepted, otherwise it should not; the principles of Sutta are firmer than the view of the teachers." (Samantapasadika Atthakatha I: 231)

Yes, I agree with that, however, in this case there is no discrepancy, the Commentaries explain why it is not 500 years for the time of the Dispensation; therefore, there is no discrepancy.