Discussions

Inspired by Candol from here

Suttas - core teachings of the buddha

Wouldn't it be good to have a book of suttas that a number of prominent secular buddhists agree on that could represent the Buddha's teachings more easily and accurately to those who are not just new to buddhism but also to those who'd like to become familiar with those suttas which are considered to be not later additions.

Such a compilation would do much to help people get to grips with buddhist teachings and their origins.

http://secularbuddhism.org/forum/secular-buddhist-community-group3/buddhist-texts-forum5/suttas-core-teachings-of-the-buddha-thread199.0/#postid-2616

I would only derail that thread so I start a new instead.

Yes why not such a book if them feel for it.
One could start pointing to Stephen Batchelors
latest book, that would be a good start???

My proposal is not a competing book or against
at all see my proposal as a complement to that book.

We could collect personal stories from all of us active
and those that lurk could send in their stories too.

I would then tell about my encounter with Amida Buddha
seen from a secular naturalistic perspective.

and all of you would tell your personal stories
and the order of the stories is up to the "Editor"
of the compilation to decide on.

Such a book would give the newcomer a broad insight
in how secular buddhists practice a modern Buddhism.

In it each of us could have short quotes from Stephen B
and others that made sense to us when we decided to be
secular and not orthodox something?

Ted is that an answer to my suggestion too? I'm not interested in reading any more paraphrasing of the teachings at this point. But i would like the suttas sorted - the wheat from the chaff.

Hi, all. My reply was an answer to the quote of Candol's, simply stating that different translators are going to have varied thoughts about the best wording. Same idea with wheat from chaff, they may find different value to different suttas. Sorry to have misunderstood, Candol

NE, sorry, I missed your point too! You're suggesting that people send in, or perhaps post here, their personal stories about their engagement with a secular kind of Buddhism to be collected in a book? If that's what you're suggesting, that's a really great idea. Your idea, you get credit on this one!

What would you think of me setting up a page, asking for submissions?

Ted

Sorting the wheat from the chaff. I don't want a book that makes judgements about which suttas are useful to secular buddhists but i would like a book that gives lay people a chance to benefit from all that scholarship about which suttas are supposed to be early and which are supposed to be insertions and come later.

I would think that a bunch of scholars could work on it together and come to some consensus. I would think they would agree on most of them and that would go a long way to helping people who can't study it all for themselves.

As to which translations. Well in an essay on translations they could discuss alternatives. And then it only matters if the translations seriously affect how one can apply the text in their own life.

Perhaps there should be a chief editor.

I would be slightly doubtful about Stephen Batchelor's version of such a book. I mean i would think he would pick and choose the suttas that he finds pertinent to his views on what the buddha meant but i don't find that necessarily the best criteria for making a compilation. That said, i still think it would be a very useful book but i think it would leave itself more open to criticism from a lot of traditional buddhists.

I think a safer option would be one that uses time and insertions as the criteria.

Incidentally has anyone done a serious study on Buddhaghosa and his contribution to the canon and the way its impacted the interpretation of the dharma? That would make for good reading and be very useful i would think.

It's only a starting point, but from what I gather from the "Origins" section of Wikipedia's entry on "Pali Canon",* there is no scholarly consensus on dating the different parts or re: "what are the earliest books", although it does say that:

The majority of Western scholars consider the earliest identifiable stratum to be mainly prose works,[35] the Vinaya (excluding the Parivara[36]) and the first four nikāyas of the Sutta Pitaka,[37] and perhaps also some short verse works[38] such as the Suttanipata.

In any case, this seems like more of an academic question than a practical one (and I say that as someone who usually takes academic questions pretty seriously).

What's more, as much as I would like to know more about the historical Buddha's teachings (as opposed to others' interpretations of and additions to them), I'm also keenly aware that my interest in that scholarship is partly motivated by a defensive aversion to orthodox accusations of having perverted those teachings - or having remade them in my own secular image (not unlike Alan Wallace's treatment of Stephen Batchelor).

While I'm definitely not over that aversion, I also don't want to feed it too much. Better (at least in my case) that I work on accepting the idea that Buddhism is a fountain of wisdom - fed by Gotama, but also by a long tradition of buddhas or buddha-wannabees - from which we are all free to drink - or spit out, as the case may be.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon#Origins

Candol: Let's do a thought experiment, shall we?

Imagine that a scholarly consensus emerged, which claims that much of what we know about Buddhism was invented only relatively recently - say, within the past 500 years.* How would that revelation impact your practice?

Off-hand, I'm pretty sure that I'd be disappointed. After all, one of the things that I find appealing in Buddhism is its antiquity. In other words, practicing it (insofar as I do) makes me feel connected, not only to other Buddhists around the world today, but also to thousands of years' worth of Buddhists. Thanks to that scholarly consensus, that connection suddenly looks a lot smaller!

On the other hand, I don't approach Buddhism the way an orthodox Buddhist does (say, like a devout Theravadan). Indeed, my approach is so radically unorthodox that I actually sympathize to a degree with those who say that it's not Buddhist at all! (I say "to a degree" partly because I think that these critics overestimate the stability and uniformity of religions.) Surely, a secularist/naturalist/scientific-skeptic like myself cannot also be a Buddhist!

But that aside, all of my Buddhist "teachers" are still alive today: writing books & essays, doing interviews for podcasts, speaking at seminars, running meditation retreats, etc. They are the closest that I've got to a "sangha" (even though it's a virtual one). More so than even Gautama himself, are they my buddhas! Sure, they all harness the power of myth surrounding the Buddha. But I am already aware that it is a myth (or at least largely so), so what difference would it make to my practice if it turned out that it's a much younger myth than I previously thought?

I could be wrong, but I don't think it would make one iota of a difference in how I practice Buddhism if Buddhism were much younger.

And, let's say we alter the thought experiment, so that the scholarly consensus is instead a claim of discovery of a document that's both older and much smaller than the Pali Canon, yet clearly serves as its source.

To be sure, I'd be interested in it. But the thought that I might alter my practice so as to conform more closely to the source - say, just because it's older - strikes me as kind of fallacy on my part, or a faulty way to lead my life.

Anyway, I should go to bed. Hope you receive this lengthy reply in the loving-kind way that it's intended.

* To serve a purpose (e.g. of thinking through an idea to its consequences), a thought experiment needn't be realistic, but this one isn't quite as absurd as it may sound at first blush. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invented_traditions

Eric:

I'm not familiar enough with Jodo Shinshu to warrant a star rating, but I agree (partly thanks to those thought experiments above) that its youth (relative to the teachings that we learn from the Pali Canon) is not necessarily a strike against it. Antiquity is not merit.

You lost me on the postmodern stuff, however. Postmodernism (PM) is not a school that I typically relate to. Quite the contrary, given the scientific-skeptical circles that I move in outside of this forum, in which PM is often singled out for abuse as a defender and/or accomplice to the creationist/intelligent-design (ID) movement. (Simply put, the charge is that PM treats scientific accounts of our origins as "just another narrative", no more or less true than that of ID).

While I recognize that not every claim made in the name of PM is necessarily that extreme, for someone to liken Secular Buddhism to PM actually strikes me as somewhat of a slur. Is that what you intend?

[Edited]

Indeed, if I recall correctly, then Glenn Wallis - who is, I believe, influenced by PM - has charged Secular Buddhism with "scientism."

I have not read him but it would be typical of a postmodernist to make
such claims yes.

Slur? is that not a very bad word. I have to look it up.

To talk about disparagingly or insultingly.

Nope that was not my intention at all.
Rather I try to express a heartfelt concern.
I am not into philosophy. I can not think
on that level so it I seem to fail to explain
what makes me worried.

My reasoning goes a bit like this.
Buddhism as it officially get presented
seem to be a kind of pragmatism. Not only
a practice but holding the practice in such
esteem that it becomes something dogmatic?
The practice becomes the dogma. Noble Eight Path
can be viewed to support such an interpretation.

I know too little about Jodo Shinshu and the
only reason that I care about is that it does
explain my personal experience and I have found
no other tradition that does that. Sure one can
say it was Jesus instead of Amida but I have
already asked more than hundreds of Christians
and many many atheists about that and they say
that Jesus don't do such things that I must have
been mistaken. But Amida does do what I did
experience so some 700 years ago a Buddhist Monk
did experience something remotely similar to
my personal experience and he changed how he
interpreted Buddhism and his relatives used
his written texts to start a Buddhist school
for to continue what he inspired to do.

What I would prefer is to have a contemplative
practice that does not have to relate to texts
that are that old. I would even be skeptical
to texts just 50 years old. I mean read what
they thought of how to make computer programs
that could act in ways that made them seem to be
a human behind the keyboard. They where way too
optimistic of how easy it is.

Compare that with some 700 years ago or 2500 ...

I want reliable research and I feel very unsure of
if those we have now can be trusted.

That is why I regret that I did not made a note about
the mindfulness researcher that tested to meditate
and realized he could not do it he had no talent for
to concentrate.

Why did nobody care enough about him to tell him
what SBA has told me here. That he has misunderstood.
One don't need to be able to concentrate at all.

Just to have the dedication to go back to listen to
the breath regardless of how often or fast one get lost.

But maybe that where what he referred to to not have that
dedication to go back again and again. A kind of lack
of patience?

Why do I take up this? Because Shinran and Jodo Shinshu
take care of that by saying one are okay even if one
don't have that patience or lack that dedication or ...

Their approach to practice is very different from
what SBA show here in the site. That is what I meant
when I said I see not difference to the other forms
of Buddhism which where listed as different.
All of those listed had the practice as the dogma
as I see it. While Shin Buddhism does not.

What one can be critical of about Shin is that they
can have many other dogmas. That is why I say that
I know too little to really defend it. I only know
it to be the only Buddhism that helped me.