[Buddha-l] Re: there he goes again (samharris)

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Lance,

>>The one, if it is exceptional and has been integrated in the canon, 
>>has more weight in my eyes than the many, especially if it relates a 
>>conflict. 
  
>Well, that's a common view. Clearly, if one adopts it, one will 
>inevitably find many inconsistencies. 

But does one really have the choice to not adopt it or give it a good try? If we look at family picture albums, we could get the idea that people never or hardly ever die. Most pictures are about happy events, no funerals. Some family members may not make into the album etc. It is often said about myths, history and family history that the version of the victors tend to survive. That being the case, the presence of documents not entirely in line with the rest could be a source of precious information. 

We know there were many many clashes in Buddhism, the contrary would have been abnormal, and Buddhism has reported many of them or alluded to them. Think of Devadatta, the 18 subsects, all the conciles and their consequences, town monks and forest monks etc. etc. I don't know about the reality behind the stories in the vinaya, but when we look at how the various vinaya rules came into being, we always find most pragmatic reasons for their existence. Causing a schism is considered a very heavy offense and it is recommended to have a "Community in concord, on complimentary terms, free from dispute, having a common recitation, [that] dwells in peace”. For such a rule to have been issued and qualified as a Sanghadisesa, there must have been genuin and serious issues leading up to it. 

So when you say “We do not know if the discourse is given because there is some disagreement between the two or because the author of that discourse wanted to head off the possibility” and plead for the latter, the fact remains that the author felt the statement needed to be made, because of the existence of tensions in that community. While writing this, I was reminded of another text mentioning different ways of release and rememebred I read it in Gombrich’s How Buddhism Began. And while searching for it, I stumbled upon a chapter called "Retracing an Ancient Debate: How Insight Worsted Concentration in the Pali Canon"
 So apparently even among British specialists on early Buddhism potential causes for a schism exist ;-) 

>>What would this opposition be about if the jhaanas were a process 
>>of developing mindfulness AND clear comprehension? 

>What it says it is. On the one hand, meditators (jhaayins) i.e. those 
>with personal experience of nibbaana and on the other hand 
>researchers into dhamma. To my mind, that would be those developing 
>the abhidhamma teachings. 

Yes, I think so too. Although I am not sure the Jhaayins are the only ones to have personal experience (would that be bodily witness?) of nibbaana? Isn’t it rather about accentuating one approach instead of the other? I expect both parties must have practiced both study and meditation. 

>If you really think that the opposition is between jhaana and 
>vipassanaa, then the sutta is claiming that those who practise jhaana 
>attain nibbaana and those who practise vipassanaa simply understand 
>subtle points. This doesn't seem likely to me. 

True. 

>In fact, this discourse is attributed to Saariputta's brother 
>Mahaacunda, not to the Buddha and is in an unusual location. This 
>suggests to me that it probably dates from a time after the Buddha 
>when specialization has started to develop. 

In the view of myth building and appeal to authority, the fact that the discourse is attributed to Mahaacunda and is in an unusual location is for me a strong indication of its authenticity. It can’t have been that late, if Mahaacunda was Saariputta's brother, who is said to have died before the Buddha. 
I am not sure, but I only have my intuition to support this :-), that those “specializations” were there right from the start of Buddhism. I see later Buddhism (the Pali canon) as a compromise. 

>Note that a second 
>discourse also attributed to the same elder and in the same location 
>discusses possible defilements arising from claims made about one's 
>knowledge or about one's practice or about both of these. I think 
>this is the same opposition. 

Yes and that claim probably led up to the issuing of Parajika 4 (Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he -- being remorseful and desirous of purification -- might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.) 

Something was brewing
 

Joy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20061101/1329e682/attachment.htm