General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Sādhaka wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:40 pm
“However, if you have visited the site in present-day Rajgir, it is obvious that it is impossible for more than a few people to fit onto the summit. So, we have to understand the truth of these accounts at a different level, a level beyond the ordinary one confined by conventional notions of space and time.” — The Essence of the Heart Sutra
Correct, which means we not speaking about history, which is all about conventional notions of space and time. And this is precisely why claiming this or that Buddhist narrative is truly true, more true than someone else's narrative is complete bollocks.
Since many sutras are written as chronicles of actual events yet contain phrases to the effect of:
“Whoever repeats even a few lines of this sutra will benefit”
...I mean, that right there is an impossibility.
You can’t have, “this is a story about someone and in that story he mentions referring to this story”.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 9:34 pm
Since many sutras are written as chronicles of actual events yet contain phrases to the effect of:
“Whoever repeats even a few lines of this sutra will benefit”
...I mean, that right there is an impossibility.
You can’t have, “this is a story about someone and in that story he mentions referring to this story”.
Why not? Narratives are just narratives. They can have many layers.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 9:34 pm
Since many sutras are written as chronicles of actual events yet contain phrases to the effect of:
“Whoever repeats even a few lines of this sutra will benefit”
...I mean, that right there is an impossibility.
You can’t have, “this is a story about someone and in that story he mentions referring to this story”.
Why not? Narratives are just narratives. They can have many layers.
Because you’d be referring to a story about the present but that story, itself, wouldn’t exist until the future.
It would be like me saying “and then I replied to Malcom’s comment and then he responded to it” while actually referring to the words I am typing now, before you even read them (much less reply)
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 9:34 pm
Since many sutras are written as chronicles of actual events yet contain phrases to the effect of:
“Whoever repeats even a few lines of this sutra will benefit”
...I mean, that right there is an impossibility.
You can’t have, “this is a story about someone and in that story he mentions referring to this story”.
Why not? Narratives are just narratives. They can have many layers.
Because you’d be referring to a story about the present but that story, itself, wouldn’t exist until the future.
It would be like me saying “and then I replied to Malcom’s comment and then he responded to it” while actually referring to the words I am typing now, before you even read them (much less reply)
Well, no it’s more like saying,if you tell people about this medicine, they will benefit.
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
There is no evidence of writing in India prior to the mid-third century BCE. The Buddha’s parinirvana was around 407 BCE.
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
This is giving Zen folks a bad look!
It’s pretty common knowledge that early on, Buddhism was an oral tradition.
Keith
When walking, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking,
being silent, moving, being still.
At all times, in all places, without interruption - what is this?
One mind is infinite kalpas.
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
In India at least, the handing down of wisdom was an oral tradition.
Even the vast collection of the Vedas were handed down, syllable by syllable - until the whole collection was memorized.
They used mnemonic devices - tricks that helped you recall the verses - basically repetition.
And the same applies to 500 BC (or there about a) when the Buddha taught. If you look at the Tripitaka you’ll see a lot of repetition.
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
This is giving Zen folks a bad look!
It’s pretty common knowledge that early on, Buddhism was an oral tradition.
Keith
Only if you ignore the Dharmakaya aspect.
And concerning what started me to create this thread, something Malcolm said.
Thee Lotus Sutra is an Entity not a story. Although for some it might only appear as a story.
Zenny wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 12:01 am
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
This is giving Zen folks a bad look!
It’s pretty common knowledge that early on, Buddhism was an oral tradition.
Keith
Only if you ignore the Dharmakaya aspect.
And concerning what started me to create this thread, something Malcolm said.
Thee Lotus Sutra is an Entity not a story. Although for some it might only appear as a story.
TBH, my friend, the Nichiren POV is all lost on me. But, I do try to understand.
When walking, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking,
being silent, moving, being still.
At all times, in all places, without interruption - what is this?
One mind is infinite kalpas.
There is no evidence of writing in India prior to the mid-third century BCE. The Buddha’s parinirvana was around 407 BCE.
Well, paraphrasing Bhikkhu Anandajoti, there seems to be evidence of writing during the Indus civilization, but then, somehow later forgotten, only to arise again later.
Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 5:08 pm
We are meant to take them at face value that they were heard and saidnin the places they say and to whom.
Ok, you can take everything at face value if you like. That is your prerogative.
But do you really think thousands of monks can fit here?
People were little back then, not a giant like you. All the magical Bodhisattvas putting on symbolic puppet shows and remembering infinite sutras of past buddhas probably fit.
Last edited by Natan on Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sādhaka wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:40 pm
“However, if you have visited the site in present-day Rajgir, it is obvious that it is impossible for more than a few people to fit onto the summit. So, we have to understand the truth of these accounts at a different level, a level beyond the ordinary one confined by conventional notions of space and time.” — The Essence of the Heart Sutra
Correct, which means we not speaking about history, which is all about conventional notions of space and time. And this is precisely why claiming this or that Buddhist narrative is truly true, more true than someone else's narrative is complete bollocks.
Nice use of England slang, New Englishman. No, it means there's a magical component to Buddha. He walked in the sky, and projected from Rajgir to Lanka to give Kalachakra, and outer space Bodhisattvas as many as sands in Ganges piled up on Rajghir and heard all three wheels in their own language.
Or it means buddhism is bullshit except for some bits about meditation and some value of about liberation which may or may not relate with anything true.
So your suggesting that the vedas didn't exist as books before Siddartha?
Bottom line, did Siddartha know what writing or books were? And if he did,why no books from him,or suggestions for a written record from his fellows?
There is no evidence of writing in India prior to the mid-third century BCE. The Buddha’s parinirvana was around 407 BCE.
You weren't there. He had magical writing called mantras
