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

[Joy Vriens]

>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. 

I have the impression that with your approach, we have a default interpretation, in which the events took place as they are generally said to have taken place in the traditional written sources. You admit that your default interpretation is also a possibility through lack of better evidence, but as long as it isn't clearly challenged by any of the other possibilities, it will stand as the correct interpretation. 
 
>>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. 

But if many of those conflicts revolve around very similar themes, as I see it, and the same themes keep coming back at later points in history, they may be more elementary than simple clashes between charismatic egos 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. 
 
>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. 

But there was a certain context that led up to the creation of a certain rule. There was a transmission of these rules and posisbly of the context. I can imagine that if one learns about the rule that one is not allowed to throw beds out of the window, one wonders what the reason behind that may be, in view of the attainment of nibbana. So there must have been some link between the rule and the story that was "made up". Or do you believe that many of these rules came from Jains or other sects, joining the Buddha, and that the relevancy of vows was not always known and had to be reactualised by giving a Buddhist twist to it. I.e. rules that may have had more metaphysical or superstitious reasons got downgraded by an extremely down to earth reason? If you do, I think you may be right. ;-)    
 
>>  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. 

Or from ascetics joining the Buddha later. The way I see is that many of the ascetics joining the Buddha came with their beliefs and vows etc.  They must have been able to let go of some of them or sacrify them to the new system, but perhaps not all of them. As long as they didn't get in the way of the Buddha's system, they were perhaps allowed to keep them. After having been skilfully disempowered by obscure down-to-earth reasons and stories. Like the gods got disempowered by the Buddha as well. 
 
>Also, they could just be a result of intelligent foresight and  
>observations of the disputes among the Jains (which are mentioned in  
>the discourses). 

If we can give *some* credit to the stories behind the rules of the vinaya and the fact that the Buddha allowed minor vows to be skipped after his death, they are very much based on an ad hoc approach, in which foresight didn't play a big role.  
 
>>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. 

Do you think that simple disputes between two individuals would have made it into the canon, if they or their range were limited to those two individuals? And would they in that case have qualified those two individuals as Jhaayins and Dhammayoga bikkhus?
 
>>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 :-) 

Yes and in an extermely gentlemanly manner as could be expected from both of you. :-)
  
>>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)". 

I find this a very interesting theme, which unfortunately wasn't elaborated enough in the thread "The Body in Buddhist Practice". The more yogic Jhaana theory, which you seem to follow, seems to give prevalence to the jhaana approach in which "the deathless element is touched with the body".   
 
>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. 

Which reminds me of the criticism by some members of the "study-based ligneages" of the methods of "practice-based ligneages" in Tibetan Buddhism much later, in which they said these methods would cause rebirth as an animal.  
 
>The point of the sutta is to urge that both appreciate the good  
>qualities of the others. 

Of course, but the sutta also gave us information about an opposition and even gives names to the two opposed parties.
 
Joy