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

[L.S. Cousins]

Joy,

>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.

That goes a little farther than I would want to go. It would depend 
on the particular issue. But I am against the tendency to make 
mountains out of molehills.

>  >>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 see the things you list as similar. I agree that people tend 
to have disagreements, adopt affiliations and form parties.

>  >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".

Of course.

>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. ;-)

Leaving aside the sekhiya rules which are obviously a later 
development, I think many of the rules were common ground among the 
mendicants of the time. The general pattern would have been familiar 
to both the Buddha and to many of his earliest disciples from their 
prior experience. I don't doubt that the Buddha put his own stamp on 
them, but it is not easy for us to know which particular rules 
originated with the Buddha and which were taken over by the Buddha 
from prior traditions because he saw them as beneficial. Some may 
have originated in subsequent generations of his followers, but I 
assume not many. The Buddha seems to have lived to an advanced age 
and would have had a sufficiently large following to require a degree 
of organization.

>  >>  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.

That's possible, but we would have to look at particular cases to support this.

>  >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.

I assume that, whatever their origin, the main rules were indeed 
carefully considered. I do not see that adopting a casuistic approach 
necessarily applies lack of forethought - rather the opposite. We 
should note that as an organization the Buddhist Sangha has been one 
of the most successful in human history.

>  >>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?

I agree that the discourse would not have been included if it had not 
been seen as important to emphasize that both jhaayins (whether 
practising jhaana or insight) and followers of dhammayoga are 
admirable.

>  >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".

I do think that this is the main emphasis of the ancient tradition.

>  >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.

I am not sure that we have any indication of two opposed parties. It 
is more a question of what some people say.

Lance Cousins