[Buddha-l] Core teachings [was Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from?]

[Jim Peavler]

On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Benito Carral wrote:

> On Monday, January 30, 2006, Richard Nance wrote:
>
>>> BTW,  according  to the teachings, consciousness are
>>> not  bearers  of anything, but a name given to a set
>>> of impermanent properties.
>
>> According to which teachings, Beni?
>
>    To the Buddha's teachings, to the suttas.

I had hoped that either Benito or Vicente might respond to my posting  
about the questions asked by Malunkyputta. Perhaps I quoted too much  
of it. So, I will simplify it here and trim it savagely.

First of all, this is an OLD sutta. I do not have my books here (they  
are wasting away in Albuquerque) so I cannot come up with exact  
dates, but the Sutta 63 of the Majjhimanidaya is old. In it are  
numerous accounts of the Blessed One and his followers, and, as would  
be expected most of the suttas describe talks given by the Buddha or  
question and answer sessions with various monks and lay people on a  
wide range of subjects.

One of his long-time monks is a skeptical person, Malunkyputta, who  
finally decides to confront the Blessed One and ask him directly the  
questions that are most on his mind, and he does so. He demands a  
straight answer from the Buddha or he will leave the Sangha. After a  
parable that clearly indicates that the Buddha thinks these are  
stupid questions (the author of the bit calls them "Questions that  
lead not unto edification"), the Buddha takes the questions one-by- 
one and answers each one in exactly the same words.

Two of the questions are extremely close to being the main subjects  
of this thread, and if not the same questions they are exactly the  
same kind of question. The two most closely relevant questions are  
these: "are the soul and body identical, or is the soul one thing and  
the body another?; do saints exist after death or do not exist after  
death, or both exist and do not exist after death or neither exist  
nor not exist after death?"

The Buddha looks Malunkyputta straight in the eye, and The Blessed  
One replies: “Pray, Malunkyputta, did I ever say to you, ‘Come,  
Malunkyputta, lead the religious life under me, and I will elucidate  
to you whether the soul and body are identical, or whether the soul  
is one thing and the body another?; whether saints exist after death  
or do not exist after death, or whether they both exist and do not  
exist after death, or whether they neither exist nor do not exist  
after death?: Or did you ever say to me, ‘Reverend Sir, I will lead   
the religious life under The Blessed One, on condition that The  
Blessed One elucidate to me [the answers to these questions]?”

In this sutta (an old sutta) The Blessed One himself then elucidates  
what it is that he teaches and what he intends to teach (implying  
that his teaching deliberately excludes the questions above (and  
several others of like kind). Here is what he tells his followers to  
learn from him:

“The religious life, Malunkyputta does not depend on the dogma that  
the soul and body are identical. . . [snip]. . . or the dogma that  
the saint exists or does not exist". . .[snip] . . . etc. through  
each of the questions.

“Accordingly, Malunkyputta, bear always in mind what it is that I  
have not elucidated, and what it is that I have elucidated. And what,  
Malunkyputta, have I not elucidated? I have not elucidated that the  
soul and body are identical. . . [snip]. . . nor the dogma that the  
saint exists or does not exist". . .[snip] . . . etc. and on through  
the questions of Malunkyputta.

“And what, Malunkyputta, have I elucidated? Misery, Malunkyputta,  
have I elucidated; the origin of misery have I elucidated; the  
cessation of misery have I elucidated; and the path leading to the  
cessation of misery have I elucidated (by the way, Professor Hayes  
has suggested that the path leading to the cessation of misery, of  
necessity, requires the gradual reduction of misery). Any why,  
Malunkyputta, have I elucidated this? Because, Malunkyputta, this  
does profit, has to do with the fundamentals of religion, and tends  
to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, knowledge,  
supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore have I elucidated it.

"Accordingly, Malunkyputta, bear always in mind what it is that I  
have not elucidated, and what it is that I have elucidated."

So, my question to those who insist that folks who do not require  
belief in literal rebirth, rebirth-consciousness, literal kharma,  
etc., because they are talked about in early suttas -- how do you  
deal with sutta 63 of the Majjhimaniday?

Do you believe in the literal stories of the Buddha remembering past  
lives? past lives as animals? Why don't you insist that, to be a  
Buddhist, everyone must believe in these stories as literally true?  
No one denies that early suttas discuss these questions. The issue is  
whether a person must absolutely believe in the exact same ones as  
Benito and Vicente say we must.

I claim that you are forced to admit that you do not believe  
literally every word of every early sutta, but that you choose which  
dogmas to believe from suttas that you have selected to believe in. I  
claim that it is impossible to do otherwise because there are  
contradictions within the earliest and most authoritative documents.

So, I agree in this istance with Dr. Hayes. What a person believes  
about the teachings of the Buddha, to a very large extent, depends  
upon what parts of the authoritative texts one is most comfortable  
with. Each person has to, to a degree, define her own relationship  
with the teachings. And I cite the sutta 63 of the Majjhimanidaya as  
the authority to ignore (if I find it comfortable) all questions for  
which I can discover no external proofs and for which I cannot  
imagine any actual first-hand experience, and to still call myself a  
Buddhist so long as I try to understand and to take seriously what  
the Buddha, in this authoritative text, said I should concern myself  
with:

"Misery, Malunkyputta, have I elucidated; the origin of misery have I  
elucidated; the cessation of misery have I elucidated; and the path  
leading to the cessation of misery have I elucidated. Any why,  
Malunkyputta, have I elucidated this? Because, Malunkyputta, this  
does profit, has to do with the fundamentals of religion, and tends  
to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, knowledge,  
supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore have I elucidated it."

I claim that, to be a Buddhist, a person must accept the Four Noble  
Truths as worthy of basing ones activities upon, and that one must be  
making a sincere effort to follow the path toward the cessation of  
misery. Anyone who is not doing at least this much, no matter what he  
believes, cannot be a real Buddhist. On the other hand, so long as a  
person is devoted and dedicated to this core teaching, it does not  
matter one whit what else one believes in.

I hope I stated that strongly enough.