Are We Born With Defilements (kilesa)?

[camerata]

I like your summary here very much, although when you indicate that there is "faith" and say it "must also be true", I think you're on shaky ground. In my view, anything based on faith cannot be proven. If it could you wouldn't be taking it on faith.[/color]

That wasn't a statement of fact, it was my guess at how Western Buddhists arrive at a belief in the supranormal aspects of Buddhism. But generally people never say how exactly they arrived at their beliefs. Perhaps it's impossible to justify blind faith.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with you here, whether we are taking about Buddhism or any other religion (and yes, I am aware of the debate about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosphy). As I have mentioned before, I think there is virtually nothing that doesn't evolve, and I believe that must be true for Buddhist thought. I guess that's where, no matter what the topic, you'd never say I was a fundamentalist.

We agree on that. Buddhist thought did evolve, but the question is how useful are the later forms created by scholars rather than by the Buddha? Look at the True Pure Land sect in Japan in the 12th century. All you had to do was call out Amida Buddha's (Amitabha) name with total sincerity at the moment of death and Amida and his retinue would whisk you off to the Tusita Heaven, where you sat on a lotus leaf listening to kalavinka birds singing in bejeweled trees.

And this comes down to my belief that there probably is no one "right" religion, but that all religions are moral codes for societies.

I think all major religions have at their core a code to preserve social harmony. But in addition, Buddhism is a system of auto-psychotherapy aimed at giving us peace of mind no matter how bad society may be and no matter what cause-and-effect throws at us.

Well, and that's where I see the value of being open to more than just one religion or philosophy. Over time, mankind has advanced not based on only one religion or moral code.

But the Dhamma works just as well now as it did 2,500 years ago... if we understand it. I don't see the need to cling to other religions.

[fabianfred]

I like your summary here very much, although when you indicate that there is "faith" and say it "must also be true", I think you're on shaky ground. In my view, anything based on faith cannot be proven. If it could you wouldn't be taking it on faith.[/color]

If one exoeriences things in meditation...such as seeing past lives or past karma...one has absolute proof of the truth of rebirth and karma.....of course you cannot show these proofs to others.... but your own belief has changed to knowledge of the truth....certainty

We agree on that. Buddhist thought did evolve, but the question is how useful are the later forms created by scholars rather than by the Buddha? Look at the True Pure Land sect in Japan in the 12th century. All you had to do was call out Amida Buddha's (Amitabha) name with total sincerity at the moment of death and Amida and his retinue would whisk you off to the Tusita Heaven, where you sat on a lotus leaf listening to kalavinka birds singing in bejeweled trees.

I know that the final thought moments are important in that they can cause us to take rebirth....even taking precedence over overwhelming good or bad karma...... but we should not be aiming for a rebirth in the higher realms any more than the lower ones.

If after a lifetime of a million years in tusita heaven we came back to the human realm...the present teaching of the buddha would be lost....and it may be some time before the arrival of the next buddha...so a good chance for us to get lost again in the ups and downs of samsara....being ignorant of the truth once again.....making mistakes which causes rebnirth in the lower realms....once again..

Another reason why one who practices meditation does not want to 'die in their sleep'... or have a sudden death.... because no chance to ensure your mindset is good in the final moments.

Edited May 26, 2009 by fabianfred

[Jungian]

According to Zen we are born with a pure mind and adults pollute it thus should we follow the path and become a monk or lay practitioner we must unlearn what we were taught, such things as dualistic thinking.

[phetaroi]

Yes, but if you compose a sutra and implicitly claim it came from Sakyamuni, it's breaking the 2nd precept.

Ah, now that's an excellent point, but in reality, how would any of us really know. I haven't personally discovered any definitive date, but it appears from what I read in various sources that the Buddhist scriptures were passed on by word of mouth for many years after Buddha passed. Can you clear that up for me?

[fabianfred]

Yes, but if you compose a sutra and implicitly claim it came from Sakyamuni, it's breaking the 2nd precept.

Ah, now that's an excellent point, but in reality, how would any of us really know. I haven't personally discovered any definitive date, but it appears from what I read in various sources that the Buddhist scriptures were passed on by word of mouth for many years after Buddha passed. Can you clear that up for me?

passed on by word of mouth by Arahants...... not ordinary beings...in abilities or desires

first written down about 300 years after the Parinibbana of the Buddha

[camerata]

Ah, now that's an excellent point, but in reality, how would any of us really know. I haven't personally discovered any definitive date, but it appears from what I read in various sources that the Buddhist scriptures were passed on by word of mouth for many years after Buddha passed. Can you clear that up for me?

According to Warder, the Pali Canon scriptures were collected and rehearsed by arahants at the First Council, and then handed down orally with monks expected to spend years memorizing the part that had been assigned to them. The full Canon was written down in Sri Lanka around 20 BC. The Mahayana sutras started turning up in the 2nd century AD.

[Xangsamhua]

There are many of them, according to Peter Harvey. If they begin with "Thus have I heard..." (meaning Ananda heard and memorized it), they are attributed to the historical Buddha. For example, the three sutras of Pure Land Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra, the foundation of Nichiren and (partly) Tendai Buddhism.

Incidentally, like Phetaroi, I have no objection to doctrinal development. Also, in the days before the concept of intellectual property started to take root (perhaps around the renaissance period in the West), ascribing a text to a great sage or historic figure was quite common. (We have the Gospels, for example, ascribed to early apostles, and several letters ascribed to Paul that he never wrote.)

Yes, but if you compose a sutra and implicitly claim it came from Sakyamuni, it's breaking the 2nd precept.

Thank you. Re the second precept, to our modern way of thinking you are correct. However, we have the concept of intellectual property. Ancient people didn't and seemed to have no qualms about writing something and ascribing it to a sage or the founder of their school. Even today, in some fairly developed parts of the world the idea that plagiarism is immoral is a novel one. From our perspective we can make a judgement on the value of a text based on what we know of its provenance, but our perspective is a fairly recent one (post-renaissance, i.e. since about the 14th century). Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the old Mahayana sages.

[camerata]

Thank you. Re the second precept, to our modern way of thinking you are correct. However, we have the concept of intellectual property. Ancient people didn't and seemed to have no qualms about writing something and ascribing it to a sage or the founder of their school. Even today, in some fairly developed parts of the world the idea that plagiarism is immoral is a novel one. From our perspective we can make a judgement on the value of a text based on what we know of its provenance, but our perspective is a fairly recent one (post-renaissance, i.e. since about the 14th century). Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the old Mahayana sages.

Sorry, I meant the 4th precept - refraining from false speech. If you compose a sutra out of the blue (different style and new concepts) and then put Sakyamuni's signature on it, you can hardly claim it was "spoken in truth." It seems a lot worse to me than composing a sutra that is a distillation of the Buddha's teachings and putting his name on it. I'm sure those ancient Buddhist monks were familiar with Right Speech and the precepts they were expected uphold.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you. Re the second precept, to our modern way of thinking you are correct. However, we have the concept of intellectual property. Ancient people didn't and seemed to have no qualms about writing something and ascribing it to a sage or the founder of their school. Even today, in some fairly developed parts of the world the idea that plagiarism is immoral is a novel one. From our perspective we can make a judgement on the value of a text based on what we know of its provenance, but our perspective is a fairly recent one (post-renaissance, i.e. since about the 14th century). Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the old Mahayana sages.

Sorry, I meant the 4th precept - refraining from false speech. If you compose a sutra out of the blue (different style and new concepts) and then put Sakyamuni's signature on it, you can hardly claim it was "spoken in truth." It seems a lot worse to me than composing a sutra that is a distillation of the Buddha's teachings and putting his name on it. I'm sure those ancient Buddhist monks were familiar with Right Speech and the precepts they were expected uphold.

One would hope so. Otherwise they'd be a bit unethical, wouldn't they.

I wonder if these comments from Thich Nhat Hanh are pertinent:

Mahayana sutras offer a more liberal and broad way of looking at and understanding the basic teachings of Buddhism. This has the effect of preventing the reification of the teachings, which can come about from a narrow or rigid way of learning and practice. Mahayana sutras help us discover the depths of the Nikaya and Agama texts. They are like a light projected onto an object under a microscope, an object that has somehow been distorted by artificial means of preservation. Of course the Nikayas and Agamas are closer to the original form of the Buddha’s teachings, but they have been altered and modified by the understanding and practice of the traditions that have passed them down. Modern scholars and practitioners should be able to restore original Buddhism from the available texts of both the Southern and Northern Traditions. We need to be familiar with the texts of both traditions.

Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Paths, White Clouds. Berkeley CA, Parallax Press, p. 576

Perhaps this should be a new thread if anyone is interested.

[camerata]

Mahayana sutras offer a more liberal and broad way of looking at and understanding the basic teachings of Buddhism. This has the effect of preventing the reification of the teachings, which can come about from a narrow or rigid way of learning and practice.

In some cases (i.e. some sutras) this is true, in other cases not. A better way to prevent the reification of the teachings is what some Theravadin ajahns are doing now: going back and reexamining what the Buddha actually said in the suttas and vinaya and what it really meant.

Modern scholars and practitioners should be able to restore original Buddhism from the available texts of both the Southern and Northern Traditions. We need to be familiar with the texts of both traditions.

Yes, but here I think he means the Northern versions of the material in the Pali Canon. That was his approach in his biography of the Buddha.

Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Paths, White Clouds. Berkeley CA, Parallax Press, p. 576

A masterpiece of Buddhist literature that every Buddhist should read. Beautifully illustrated, too.

[sabaijai]

If one exoeriences things in meditation...such as seeing past lives or past karma...one has absolute proof of the truth of rebirth and karma.... but your own belief has changed to knowledge of the truth....certainty

If in meditation I see myself as a reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte, does that mean I have proved to myself that it is true?

One might simply be hallucinating. Or one might be mad. An alternative is to remain sceptical of visions that arise in meditation, trusting only in sati and the paramatta dhamma, ie citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana.

[phetaroi]

A better way to prevent the reification of the teachings is what some Theravadin ajahns are doing now: going back and reexamining what the Buddha actually said in the suttas and vinaya and what it really meant.

In some other thread I thought we had discussed that for many years after the Buddha's passing that Buddha's pronouncements were passed on through word of mouth before finally being written down. This would pretty much negate reexamining what the Buddha actually said. Although, the closer to Buddha's life scholars and monks go, the more accurate the interpretations.

[camerata]

Although, the closer to Buddha's life scholars and monks go, the more accurate the interpretations.

Exactly. Linguists can date a text by the style of the language, the verse more than the prose. Language changes a lot in a hundred years. They also know the dates various sects split from each other and can compare if their versions of the texts are the same. It's not exact, but they can get a reasonable idea of what was composed in the time of the Buddha and what came later.

"Word of mouth" brings to mind something like Chinese Whispers, but it wasn't like that. It was carefully rehearsed recitation of texts in a formulaic style. Changes to the original texts are more likely to have been deliberate than accidental, as texts were "clarified" or expanded to make the Buddha seem greater than his contemporaries.