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

[L.S. Cousins]

Joy,

You wrote:
>  >>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.

I replied:
>  >Well, that's a common view. Clearly, if one adopts it, one will
>  >inevitably find many inconsistencies.

Your response:
>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.

It can be, but that's only one possibility. Inconsistencies occur 
quite normally anyway.

>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.

That's over a period of, say, 500 years. Focussing on the conflicts 
could actually be very misleading.

>  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.

But it is clear that it was a convention that the rules are 
accompanied by a story. So when a new rule was created a new story 
was made up to illustrate it.

>  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.

These rules could all (or some) be pre-Buddhist and taken over from 
the traditions of the groups in which the Buddha was trained.

Also, they could just be a result of intelligent foresight and 
observations of the disputes among the Jains (which are mentioned in 
the discourses).

>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.

Or, between two of his pupils.

>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 ;-)

Well, if you read that, you may have noticed a footnote in which he 
mentions that I don't quite agree with him on precisely this point :-)

>  >>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?

In this sutta they are stated to 'touch the deathless element with 
the body'. The followers of dhammayoga rather: "penetrate with wisdom 
and see profound meaning (atthapada)".

>Isn’t it rather about accentuating one approach instead of the 
>other? I expect both parties must have practiced both study and 
>meditation.

It is quite clear that in this sutta the jhaayins are portrayed as 
criticizing the followers of dhammayoga because they are 
unconcentrated, unmindful, lacking in clear comprehension, with 
scattered minds, etc. etc. In other words they precisely don't 
meditate. The dhammayogas are shown as questioning the quality of the 
meditation of the jhaayins.

The point of the sutta is to urge that both appreciate the good 
qualities of the others.

>  >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.

If one accepts that the Cunda who attended Saariputta in his last 
illness is the same as Mahaacunda, then he would probably have 
outlived the Buddha. But I assume that the discourse is simply 
attributed to a famous disciple. This must be because everybody knew 
that the Buddha had not said anything of the sort. So it should come 
from a somewhat later time.

>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.

I would agree that the Buddha is likely to have taught both 
meditation and profound study of dhamma. So for me the compromise is 
likely to have been there from the beginning and very probably before.

>  >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

I think the problem of people making claims is bound to be 
pre-Buddhist. So rules to deal with that are likely to have existed 
in pre-Buddhist sanghas.

Lance Cousins