A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Leo Rivers »

A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha. A dynamite comparison to the real situation of academics compared to Aristotle and much more enesues, and the blog(a converstion into which you can jump in) begins:
Trusting our sources: manuscripts, archaeology, and what we “cannot know”
Posted on 28 April 2014 by justin — 22 Comments ↓

I am fresh back from the “Buddhism and Social Justice” conference hosted by Leiden University, The Netherlands.

This will be the first in what I hope will be a number of posts in the coming weeks about individual papers and ideas flowing from the conference, posted both here and/or at my own blog, American Buddhist Perspective(s). This post has to do with methodology and how we approach our sources, so I think it is something everyone here can appreciate and, I hope, offer feedback on. At the conference Prof. Steven Collins made the very interesting plea:
http://indianphilosophyblog.org/2014/04 ... nnot-know/

:buddha1:
odysseus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by odysseus »

The same crap, new wrapping. Sowing more doubt for modern Buddhists, hmm.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by gad rgyangs »

odysseus wrote:The same crap, new wrapping. Sowing more doubt for modern Buddhists, hmm.
ha ha, yes its much better to turn your brain off if you want to be a good little Buddhist.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Wayfarer »

It's a rather academic issue. I have read Stephen Collins' book Selfless Persons and thought it was pretty good. But this debate is all about what is or isn't able to be proven as regards historical Buddhism. So it's another 'whose is the real dharma' debate that is characteristic of the modern world. Everything becomes subject to re-definition and further analysis and viewing from different perspectives, until it is clear that what you thought was obvious and simple is in fact obscure and complicated.

I think we can get the drift of the Buddha's teaching accurately enough but the challenge is always to walk the walk. (I can hear it now: which walk? What direction? Where to?....and so on, and so on....)
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
odysseus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by odysseus »

gad rgyangs wrote:
odysseus wrote:The same crap, new wrapping. Sowing more doubt for modern Buddhists, hmm.
ha ha, yes its much better to turn your brain off if you want to be a good little Buddhist.
You mock yourself? :crying:
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by gad rgyangs »

Wayfarer wrote:It's a rather academic issue. I have read Stephen Collins' book Selfless Persons and thought it was pretty good. But this debate is all about what is or isn't able to be proven as regards historical Buddhism. So it's another 'whose is the real dharma' debate that is characteristic of the modern world. Everything becomes subject to re-definition and further analysis and viewing from different perspectives, until it is clear that what you thought was obvious and simple is in fact obscure and complicated.

I think we can get the drift of the Buddha's teaching accurately enough but the challenge is always to walk the walk. (I can hear it now: which walk? What direction? Where to?....and so on, and so on....)
ha ha yes, wouldn't it be nice if it was that simple: you could just listen to someone tell you what's what without having to think for yourself.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
Greg
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Greg »

It seems to me that all of the issues around the question of "what the (historical) buddha really taught" boil down to this: what does Buddhism mean to you?

If you take a strictly emic perspective (or rather one strictly emic perspective), then "Buddhism" is the Buddhaśāsana which lasts a few thousand years at best, and if you are on the tail end of it you are out of luck. This is basically a śrāvaka perspective, to be precise. From this perspective you better do your best to figure out exactly what the one true historical Buddha of our age said with as much fidelity as possible. But if you then take an essentially etic approach to resolving that concern (e.g. a historicist, text critical, philological one) then you have mixed apples and oranges with your value system and you are bound to run into some vexing contradictions.

To some extent the Mahāyāna tradition has already sidestepped the need to curate the Buddhaśāsana so fastidiously by expanding the scope of it to include all sorts of other material, material conveyed by other (extraordinary) means by other (no less worthy) individuals. And if you are inclined to take a more emic approach in keeping with the spirit of the Mahāyāna, and your sense of what "Buddhism" is is a little more expansive (e.g. you see it as a system of awakening that is not just available to one person every few thousand years, but something that is somehow more widely accessible) then the historicist, text critical, philological approach to "early Buddhism" is less threatening.

Although you are still left with some thorny questions as to how to establish authority.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by gad rgyangs »

luckily, nothing needs to be established, since nothing can be established.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
Andrew108
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Andrew108 »

Greg wrote:It seems to me that all of the issues around the question of "what the (historical) buddha really taught" boil down to this: what does Buddhism mean to you?
.........Although you are still left with some thorny questions as to how to establish authority.
Well this is the key problem. Some want to establish an orthodoxy that undermines what direct experience points out. Submission and preservation are two key themes in Buddhism that many Westerners choose to ignore.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Greg
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Greg »

gad rgyangs wrote:luckily, nothing needs to be established, since nothing can be established.
What I meant was, everyone still has to establish for him or herself what is reliable and worthwhile and what is isn't
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by gad rgyangs »

Greg wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:luckily, nothing needs to be established, since nothing can be established.
What I meant was, everyone still has to establish for him or herself what is reliable and worthwhile and what is isn't
that's the spirit!
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21906
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Grigoris »

Let me remind people that this thread is in the academic discussion section of the forum, this means that any opinions have to be referenced to academic sources. Refrain from the personal attacks, and reference opinions, or else I will be forced to delete posts.

Thank you.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2743
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: A Vital new debate of What can we know of the Buddha

Post by Zhen Li »

Steven Collins' work is far from crap, he's the foremost scholar of Pali Buddhism today. If you find academic findings are conflicting with your religious practice, I think the first place to look should be your own mind, what are your expectations and what are your assumptions about what Buddhism is, which makes academia conflict with it? Are those expectations really necessary to the practice or understanding of Dharma from a religious perspective?
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”