[Buddha-l] Back to the core values? -- and origins

Tue May 29 18:45:46 MDT 2007

>The topic of early or original Buddhism (defs vary) is fascinating, 
>but history being
>what it is (past and gone), it is not easy at all to reconstruct the 
>past, especially
>without any palpable artefacts from that time.
>

Thanks very much for the kind reply, Piya Tan.

I, too, realize that the topic of the Buddhist historical origins
is not at all an easy one; not to say that it is nearly impossible
to, as you say, (re)construct. Yet, it is on this very "origins" that
all manner of assumptions are constantly made, theories are
founded and held, ideations formulated, lives put on the block.
So, you (all) kindly excuse me if I insist and press on for a while,
pestering you with questions that I, at least, have not being able
to give answers that I deem satisfactory, to me. Having no many
choices before me, I entrust my queries on the collective mind
power of the List, to which I have been a member for some
eight or nine years-- reading thankfully in the background--
with the hope that those more learned in these manners than I
will care to respond.

I need to know, to put some doubts and certain nagging
hypotheses of mine to rest. One way or another. I need to clarify
matters that seem blur and rather paradoxical to me. I need to
know for me, as also, I feel, for the sake of others who may be
like me somewhat lost in this along the way -- whether in the know
or ignorant of it.

>However, as regards early Buddhism, we have enough conceptual 
>materials to work with where moral training and mindfulness training 
>are concerned. This reconstructibility of early
>Buddhist practice is further facilitated with intra-Buddhist and 
>comparative Buddhist
>studies, like
>(1) the Pali and the Chinese Agamas (also in Sanskrit, Gandhari, etc),
>(2) translating the terminology of living traditions into clear 
>contemporary language.

I appreciate your reaching back, Piya Tan, though I am afraid that
"conceptual materials" re "moral and mindfulness training" are
not early and specific enough paradigms so as to offer a secure
dating and offer a specific origination history regarding the Buddha
and the early records I seek.

Though I take the Pali Agamas as givens for preserving the essence
of the training and mindfulness practices to which you are referring
(not so much though the Chinese ones) I fear that these are all
written centuries after the originating events, with very much lost
or added in the meantime. My understanding is that the earlier
Nikayas were not set to record until the beginning of the 1st century,
BCE -- and that at the earliest-- as some speak of their composition
having taken place possibly several centuries later. Whether six or
four centuries, though, after the event, and over one thousand miles
and a myriad of mountains and rivers and lives and dialects in
between, this seems to me too too long a distance to allow us to
speak with confidence and a sense of historical accurately of any
one such origins.

>
>BA Wallace is doing this esp well, eg "Vacuum States of 
>Consciousness" ( 
><http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum%20States%20Essay.pdf>http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum%20States%20Essay.pdf), 
>where we can
>see how the alayavijana concept of Sanskrit Buddhism and the bhavanga of Pali
>Abhidhamma and their related concepts are so closely related.

Of course, Wallace's Theravada references, again, are too general
and, anyway, late for our quest. But much thanks, in that I realized
something while reading the paper you recommended, as per above,
another usage of a word there that much interests me.

>All this help us in a conceptual reconstruction of the early 
>practice. In fact, I think
>the reconstruction of the early practice is very helpful for the 
>practitioner. This is
>especially so with discussion with living practitioners and 
>practising oneself.
>
>best wishes
>
>Piya Tan

Thanks again, Piya. I am compelled to say that your response
confirmed a little further my "fears" that the Buddha origins, as
generally passed down by, basically, the oral tradition --
and largely adopted, as is, I think, by modern scholarship --
may be rather invented and ultimately unsupportable. To say,
right now, rather the least.

All the best,

Isidoros, Athens

>On 5/28/07, Isidoros <<mailto:ioniccentre at hol.gr>ioniccentre at hol.gr> wrote:
>
>Greetings everyone.
>
>If I may focus on Bob Zeuschner initial question(s), and
>after noting the many references so far in the discussion
>to "early Buddhism" and the "early texts", I should like to
>say that I am often left wanting, not to say perplexed,
>whenever I have tried to approach the Buddha material
>culture and literary evidence, and date it to my basic,
>critical satisfaction.
>
>I realize that like most all religions -- that is all traditions
>that were promulgated on the oral, alongside the mythical
>-- Buddhism is weighed, too, by fundamental (mis)conceptions,
>as also by superstitions, and by cultural prejudices. Yet, surely
>given the advanced application of scientific methodologies
>and material techniques, a more reliable answer should
>exist to questions surrounding the Buddha origins.
>
>When is now considered for Buddha to had been born?
>I have read a varied number of dates, that most all seem,
>to me, to be more or less arbitrarily set. Even the more
>historically conservative ones appear to be still seriously
>skewed by exaggerated beliefs, bowing essentially to them.
>
>For the sake of facilitating the discussion, yet without really
>wanting to proscribe and influence responses, may I ask,
>along historical lines: how many years before Ashoka's reign
>may be said for Buddha to had been really born, and how is
>this determined today? I certainly do not ask for any detailed
>treatment here for the matter, but for years, for example,
>I have been reading various general accounts related to
>the issue (even) in this list, most alluding to an early (6th?
>or 5th century?) birth date, without any references to it.
>So, I wonder what is the bases for all this.
>
>Put more directly, when and on what scientific evidence
>is the Buddha thought to had been born in 560 BCE or
>whenever? what is the earliest secure attestation to this
>event, and of what date?
>
>And, in regard to the discussed core values, when, and
>how many years after Buddha's birth, is the earliest
>literary evidence of his birth and teachings?
>
>I have, again, read wide varying accounts to these, and
>I should be thankful to have the List's learned members
>opinions and responses.
>
>A fine good day to all -- from a (thankfully) rainy Athens!
>
>Isidoros
>
>
>>I was suggesting that what the sutras say may or may not be
>>identical to the original teachings of the Buddha, the founder (as
>>the four gospels may or may not be identical to the teachings of the
>>founder). Are the Buddhist sutras more historically accurate than
>>the Christian gospels?
>>
>>Buddhologists date sutras and stick to those most likely to be
>>earliest in our attempt to reconstruct the founder's words.
>>Then we stress certain aspects and minimize others when we write
>>books, or teach the ideas to students.
>>
>>Certainly each and every school of Buddhism, past and present,
>>claims to be the teachings of the founder; but they are not all
>>compatible. Theravada, Madhyamika, Pure Land, Vajrayana, Ch'an.
>>My personal belief is that I doubt that it is possible to
>>reconstruct precisely and exactly what the founder taught.
>>Some teachings are pretty obviously traceable back. Did he teach
>>Dukkha? Of course. Pratityasamutpada? I certainly think so. Did he
>>teach the Four Noble Truths? I believe this is more controversial.
>>Did he teach anicca? Sure. Did he teach momentariness? Not so sure.
>>Bob
>>
>>
>><mailto:Jackhat1 at aol.com> Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:
>>>In a message dated 5/27/2007 1:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>><mailto:rbzeuschner at adelphia.net>rbzeuschner at adelphia.net writes:
>>>
>>>    However, when Christians say "what would Jesus do?" they are asking
>>>    what
>>>    their idealized vision of their founder would do (seen through 21st
>>>    century eyes and expectations).
>>>    I think Buddhists do the same when they want to "de-evolve" back to the
>  >>    teachings of the founder.
>>>
>>>====
>>>I don't think that sticking close to what the suttas say results in
>>>an idealized vision of what the Buddha taught.
>>>  Jack
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>buddha-l mailing list
>><mailto:buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>><http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l> 
>>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
><mailto:buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
><http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l> 
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
>
>
>--
>The Minding Centre
>Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
>Singapore 650644
>Website: <http://dharmafarer.googlepages.com> dharmafarer.googlepages.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l